Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-finance-50K

like 0

[ { "docid": "a77d392f783ac9bb63281d4302cd8303", "text": "Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bea4611700552b43adf637d393d847a9", "text": "First you will need a plan stating three main points: You will have to decide what criteria you will use to answer these points. You might use Fundamental Analysis to find what to buy and Technical Analysis to decide when to buy and when to sell (your buy and sell triggers). Once you have a Trading Plan in place you would need to find a broker with conditional orders. You can place conditional buy orders to get in a trade (for example if the price moves above or below a target price). You can place conditional stop loss orders if your trade goes against you, and you can also place conditional profit target stops to automatically get out if rises to your desired profit target. You can place one, two or many conditional orders after hours which will enable you to trade without being in front of your screen all day long.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7058c5586ad44d8fd12dd70c1f65ccc", "text": "Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf9700a40846d89acd57e1341d961289", "text": "Before you decide on moving into trading, whether you have experience or not, you need to sort out a couple of questions. How much do you really understand about the markets ? How much money you have and what would be the maximum loss you may be able to take ? What supporting Eco-system you have to help you in terms of trading i.e. hardware, software, research, connections who can provide you with solid information and sorts of it ? Are you really prepared to take on institutions who have billions to spend and take losses i.e. amounts which might break you will be peanuts for them ? I am assuming you are in US, so this website may help you a bit, trading websites where you can open an account. Even if you reply in affirmative to the above questions, you should still be wary about making money by trading. It is a field where even the best people have been smacked in the face without any mercy. And above all don't expect any person will take mercy on your hard earned cash. They will take you to the cleaners if they have to. There are some websites which allow you to participate in trading, not involving real money. Try that out and see where you get to ? That should give you some pointers on where you are headed. And realize that it is human nature to assume, when you hear news that such and such trader make loads of money in such and such trades, trading is easy, unless you do it for yourself. The truth is such traders would be on their desk for 18-20 hours at a stretch, 6-7 days a week, without a life to make such money. And they have loads of support staff i.e. analysts, IT guys who makes it easier for them. Do you have such help ? If no, then look the other side. But giving up without trying at all will be cowardly, but do it in limits which you can bear and not to get carried away when things are good.", "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": "e4f65c14cb339c610df2f430761c3248", "text": "The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22", "text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b34e0375b4c781987a70842a960e9076", "text": "In short: yes, as long as you have Internet access. See, for example this question or this one about opening a brokerage account from outside the US. Your sister could even open an account here in the US and provide you with access. However, I'm guessing you're not a registered or even formally trained financial advisor and if you make bets with her money that don't work out well, she could get pretty upset with you. You might consider doing research from Bangladesh on good financial advisors and picking one (or a few) to recommend she go see in the US. EDIT: OP hopes to be a financial advisor in the future. Given that comment, I'd recommend looking into becoming a Certified Financial Planner (unless CFA suits your goals; you indicated that process is already underway), as a step towards that goal. Information about the certification in the US is here, in India here, and in some other countries here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4", "text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.", "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": "afd55a620b8f7f4be8eb0f72d72178f2", "text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd25863c896820977eca451e4ac7e6ae", "text": "It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21b890429ad52c9daf27275afc511a82", "text": "I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe", "text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de08ae2af0e8ff9943c55d61e5490d1c", "text": "You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7f2f5a0598d83458ee9ca91a1201849", "text": "Yes, it does matter. You are right that lower demand for a stock will drive its price down. Lower stock prices can hurt the company. Take a look at Fixee's answer to this question: 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. If you do not want to support a company, for whatever reason, then it is wise to avoid their stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f34a624ec28c7a743e949bb4776aeab", "text": "\"This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say \"\"I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business.\"\" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation. In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't \"\"cash out\"\" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "738f4f01cacfac6815ef39b5068ee1ea", "text": "I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400. If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dac3ab9bcfeaad65bc3bac901876b8ee", "text": "In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a936419d8168fea5981f592849805c79", "text": "Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US. Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999", "text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd52462210155725b224dd03e71f866", "text": "\"Why do these stories use the word \"\"avoid\"\" instead of \"\"delay\"\". It's only \"\"avoided\"\" if they never bring the money into the US and instead find some way to spend it off shore. If their stockpile gets too big, investors are going to want some sort of return.\"", "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": "f085c11a9c0976423c8080bc749c9826", "text": "It depends whether you want to be technically compliant with the letter of the law or compliant with the underlying meaning. For instance, in some countries you can find shell companies that do nothing but deal in fixed income instruments (those that you want to avoid) and dividend stocks (those that you might or might not be allowed to use). You can buy stock of that shell company, which does not hand out dividends itself. Thereby, you transform interest and dividends into capital gains. These shell companies exist for fiscal reasons, the more risky capital gains are often less taxed than interest or dividends. This might technically solve your problem, but not really change anything in the underlying reality. P.S. Don't worry too much about missing compounding interest. The rates are incredibly low right now.", "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": "7da5f2a34222c2803b5973c53d2a3b84", "text": "That's up to you. If you instruct your broker to sell shares purchased in specific lots, they can do that -- but doing so requires that you and/or they track specific fractional lots forever afterwards so you know what is still there to be sold. FIFO simplifies the bookkeeping. And I am not convinced selecting specific lots makes much difference; the government gets its share of your profits sooner or later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20a7eb90fb4fb80f4664b2eeed2ac630", "text": "First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks? I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly. This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers. Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this). If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up. Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price. This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86eec3b61f3a08fd0ef522fdd4cc4547", "text": "This article is simply a discussion of the author's own stupidity. In no way does a liquidation preference effect the value of a company. Share class? Yes definitely. The issue comes from applying the price of a preferred funding round to a fully diluted basis as is often quoted in financial media. Value doesn't always just equal basic p * q", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72fec842579c94379154c5c9e31b87d", "text": "IESC has a one-time, non-repeatable event in its operating income stream. It magnifies operating income by about a factor of five. It impacts both the numerator and the denominator. Without knowing exactly how the adjustments are made it would take too much work for me to calculate it exactly, but I did get close to their number using a relatively crude adjustment rule. Basically, Yahoo is excluding one-time events from its definitions since, although they are classified as operating events, they distort the financial record. I teach securities analysis and have done it as a profession. If I had to choose between Yahoo and Marketwatch, at least for this security, I would clearly choose Yahoo.", "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": "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": "382415f3c945cb086cf025a9d8ea6b61", "text": "The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "befc5e32beb333b71ded5cf3f93981d1", "text": "\"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike). So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the \"\"prompt\"\" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future. The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f4987bb0da86c46f6b8b5e7fefc77df9", "text": "Stumbled upon this question, I've found the updated dates for 2016 and 2017 in a more permanent location. https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars", "title": "" }, { "docid": "705edc8917c352edfecb5356b6058ef2", "text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46c454ebb51dfb286d3b5ce34a957a29", "text": "Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6c7b57b4c708099bbf82caed964b5cb", "text": "December, 5, 2011 ( 03:00pm ) :- All markets including stocks &amp; Commodities are moving towards upward direction on the strong cues comes on the expiring today. Little bit Volatile comes over the settlement in MCX today. Gold &amp; Silver contracts are expiring today. Dow Jones Industrial average future up by80 points from the optimism coming from the European Countries. All European Countries getting financial aid from the side of IMF which is provided through the European Central Bank. Nifty have strong resistance at 5150 levels under this level short term trend still bearish side. Gold have strong support at Rs 28960 above this trend bullish under this trend down for short term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e56536646a6bb78b874992c3447e0b7", "text": "Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd998359fb000bcb3b812061132ec65b", "text": "http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057082b5885da5dc1df7c391596501ef", "text": "I have been looking into CMEs trading tool. I might just play around with futures on it. You make a good point on that though. I am reading Hull's book on options, futures and derivatives, and so far so good. Only thing I would want to test is options on futures, which is missing :( .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e4a50d30b9b0df113973cbb7a4e610", "text": "The other answer covers the mechanics of how to buy/sell a future contract. You seem however to be under the impression that you can buy the contract at 1,581.90 today and sell at 1,588.85 on expiry date if the index does not move. This is true but there are two important caveats: In other words, it is not the case that your chance of making money by buying that contract is more than 50%...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1b15d3c89a8523b3646b0385fbb85f7", "text": "\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "386190460de32b5e310c3a1d749f95e6", "text": "\"Without researching the securities in question I couldn't tell you which cycle each is in, but your answer is that they have different expiration cycles. The following definition is from the CBOE website; \"\"Expiration cycle An expiration cycle relates to the dates on which options on a particular underlying security expire. A given option, other than LEAPS®, will be assigned to one of three cycles, the January cycle, the February cycle or the March cycle.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d628784d89ecbcfad4faba21d86dbea", "text": "The question is always one of whether people think they can reliably predict that the option will be a good bet. The closer you get to its expiration, the easier it is to make that guess and the less risk there is. That may either increase or decrease the value of the option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62468c2ef430a7afd12d895d3e8ac5c1", "text": "Prior to 2005, the only SPY options that existed were the monthly ones that expire on the third Friday of every month. But in 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange introduced SPY weekly options that expire every Friday (except that there is no weekly option that expires on the same day as a monthly option). These weekly options only exist for 8 days - they start trading on a Thursday and expire 8 days later on Friday. The SPY options that expire on Friday October 31 are weekly options, and they started trading on Thursday October 23. Sources: Investopedia", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fa651968b3a4f892eda43d1753a3401", "text": "In India the only way to short a stock is using F&O which I personally find to be sufficient for any shorting needs. However, Futures can be generally sold for upto 3 months but options have more choices which are even upto 5 years you can buy a put of a longer duration and when you want to do buy-back, you can directly sell the same option by squaring-off the trade before expiry date. You generally get approximately the same profit as shorting but you get to limit your risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd95308a0ab5aabf13cc4cf9b2e7e920", "text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a4079725f2d6fbf8f1f84c9048db43f", "text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "067b64b62ef5863866fda766820f65ae", "text": "\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e71aab4db2eebd2a6cc2e519ded63c7", "text": "\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a9175d6a35bb2a1f359699e4473e2b56", "text": "I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.", "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": "d1a109c26a029ec8504ceeeeb3d37240", "text": "As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a39855dd76f6d71894d271408f6887b", "text": "Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors. Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.", "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": "a96857cf8f4229f9687b18538caa3dcc", "text": "\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15404acf93f7162857cc0bc696e09b11", "text": "\"There are firms that let you do this. I believe that Saxo Bank is one such firm (note that I'm not endorsing the company at all, and have no experience with it) Keep in mind that the reason that these currencies are \"\"exotic\"\" is because the markets for trading are small. Small markets are generally really bad for retail/non-professional investors. (Also note: I'm not trying to insult Brazil or Thailand, which are major economies. In this context, I'm specifically concerned with currency trading volume.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9daac524bddb7ad59fcf8b78ff44ab6f", "text": "Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3932cc2002b359f9b9105bc0e28a203", "text": "You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "065db451d8f3c8bfac3ce4d576a099a7", "text": "There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417", "text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"", "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": "21b890429ad52c9daf27275afc511a82", "text": "I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89301bf904b266e986a2adae98def27f", "text": "\"Intrinsic value is a myth. There is no such thing. Subjective human demand is the only thing that gives anything value. This subjectivity is different person to person and can change very quickly. Historically there are two main uses for gold: jewelry and money. How can you tell when a particular type of money is undervalued? It disappears from circulation since people prefer to use money that is overvalued. This phenomenon is paraphrased in Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out good money. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US dollar as 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold. This established a government ratio of 15 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold. In the late 18th century there was a large production of silver from Mexico and the market ratio of silver to gold increased to 15.75 to 1 by 1805. The government ratio, however, was still 15 to 1. This was enough incentive for people to exchange their silver coins for gold coins at the government ratio, melt the gold, and sell the gold bullion overseas at the market value. Thus, gold coins disappeared from circulation as people either hoarded the gold or sent it abroad. People used the overvalued silver coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and gold coins disappeared from the market. In an attempt to correct the problem of disappearing gold coins the Coinage Act of 1834 was enacted. It kept the US dollar at 371.25 grains of silver but changed the definition to 23.2 grains of gold which established a government ratio of 16 to 1. This was close to the market ratio of gold to silver at the time so both gold and silver coins appeared in circulation again. The gold rush of 1849 produced a lot of gold and the market ratio of silver to gold became 15.46 to 1. Now gold was overvalued so people began exchanging their gold coins for silver coins at the government ratio, melt the silver, and sell the silver bullion overseas at the market value. People used the overvalued gold coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and silver coins disappeared from the market. When you see gold circulating everywhere you will know it is overvalued compared to other types of money. Paper money always drives gold out of circulation since the market ratio of paper to gold severely under values gold. Source here.\"", "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": "8d993890289505b5f6a9d42cd48978ea", "text": "\"In Canada, for example, they are expected or required to find out. They call it, The “Know Your Client” rule, part of which is knowing your \"\"Investment knowledge and experience\"\". They say it is, \"\"to ensure their advice is suitable for you\"\". I have always been given that kind of form to fill in, when opening an account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5541e4cd88d0abca3d687a5388e3db", "text": "\"Yes, this is common and in some cases may be required. They may use it for marketing at some level, but they also use it for risk management in deciding, for example, how much margin to offer and whether to approve access to \"\"riskier\"\" products like stock options.\"", "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": "86f6040b3e8eaec64c6e7b504c54c483", "text": "\"I think it's a silly statement. If you are prepared from the start that you might lose it then you shouldn't invest. You invest to earn not to lose. Most often losses are a result of fear. Remember you only lose when you sell lower than you bought for. So if you have the patience you will probably regain. I ask my clients many times how much do they want to earn and they all say \"\"as much as possible\"\". Last time I checked, that's not an objective and therefore a strategy can't be built for that. If there is a strategy then exiting a stock is easy, without a strategy you never know when to exit and then you are exposed to bottomless losses. I've successfully traded for many years with large amounts of money. I made money in the FC and in the bubble, both times it wasn't because I was prepared to lose but because I had an entry and exit strategy. If you have both the idea of investing what u are prepared to lose has little value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb3d237485a72830b14f1ec0db9d1a13", "text": "No, if your brokers find out about this, even though it is unlikely, you will be identified as a pattern day trader. The regulations do not specify a per broker limit. Also, it's like a credit history. Brokers are loosely obligated to inform other brokers that a client is a pattern day trader when transferring accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ef981989a4ba46217a014dc7c11a8b", "text": "\"I'm not downvoting you because I can relate, in a way, to your post and I think this is a good topic to have on this site. We had a question a couple weeks ago where someone, like you, took some friend's money to trade with but didn't know how to give the money back or calculate the net-return. It is not smart to take and invest other people's money when you have zero industry experience and when you do not understand the legal requirements of handling someone else's money. Within the first 12 months of my brokerage account I had returned something like 150%, I doubled my money plus a bit. The next year was something like -20%; if I remember correctly the next year was worse, then up again for year four. Year 1 I thought I was a genius and had figured this whole thing out, year 2 put me in my place and year 3 kicked me while I was down. You have 6 months of pretty solid returns, good for you. I don't think that means it's time to set up shop. Really, I think you need to sit down and think long and hard about the implications, legal and otherwise, of holding other people's money. Running a fund is significantly different than trading your own money. Retail investors don't, typically, have a good memory. Great, you made me 17% last year, and 25% the year before but right now I'm down 10%, so give me my money back because I would have been better off in an savings account this year. This is why index funds are in vogue right now. Lots of people have had money in active funds that have trailed or matched the \"\"safe and passive\"\" index funds, so they're angry. Retail folks get jittery the instant they lose money, no matter how much. You need to be ready to contend with \"\"What have you done for me lately?\"\" the instant something turns negative, no matter how positive your returns have been. At your stage in the game you should get a job and continue putting your own money in to your own system and be ready to lose some of it. I doubt there is anyone outside your immediate family who will hand a random 18 year-old kid any significant amount of money to trade their system based on 6 months of success; certainly not more than you have in there currently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f38eecf4850782e35550e424c56d93d", "text": "\"Kid, you need to start thinking in thresholds. There are several monetary thresholds that separate your class from a more well funded class. 1) You cannot use margin with less than $2000 dollars Brokers require that you have at least $2000 before they will lend to you 2) In 2010, Congress banned under 21 year olds from getting access to credit. UNLESS they get cosigned. This means that even if you have $2000, no broker will give you margin unless you have a (good) credit history already. There was a good reason for this, but its based on the assumption that everyone is stupid, not the assumption that some people are objective thinkers. 3) The brokers that will open an account for you have high commissions. The commissions are so high that it will destroy any capital gains you may make with your $1000. For the most part. 4) The pattern day trader rule. You cannot employ sophisticated risk management while being subject to the pattern day trader rule. It basically limits you from trading 3 times a day (its more complicated than that read it yourself) if you have less than $25,000 in one account. 5) Non-trade or stock related investments: Buy municipal or treasury bonds. They will give you more than a savings account would, and municipals are tax free. This isn't exactly what I would call liquid though - ie. if you wanted to access your money to invest in something else on a whim. 6) What are you studying? If its anything technical then you might get a good idea that you could risk your money on to create value. But I would stick to high growth stocks before blowing your $1000 on an idea. Thats not exactly what I would call \"\"access to capital\"\". 7) Arbitrage. Lets say you know a friend that buys the trendy collectors shoes at discount and sells them for a profit. He might do this with one $200 pair of tennis shoes, and then use the $60 profit different to go buy video games for himself. If he wanted to scale up, he couldn't because he never has more than $200 to play with. In comparison, you could do 5 pairs ($200 x 5) and immediately have a larger operation than him, making a larger profit ($60 x 5 = $300, now you have $1300 and could do it again with 6 pairs to make an even great er profit) not because you are better or worked at it, but solely because you have more capital to start with. Keep an eye out for arbitrage opportunities, usually there is a good reason they exist if you notice it: the market is too small and illiquid to scale up with, or the entire market will be saturated the next day. (Efficient Market Theory, learn about it) 8) Take everything I just taught you, and make a \"\"small investor newsletter\"\" website with subscribers. Online sites have low overhead costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98931b8ab84f4d667c8119b8c747c2c6", "text": "\"It is indeed, mostly because the various factors you need to take into account will change depending on the company. An Australian mining co funding a new settlement or harbor has nothing in common with a small European packaging company looking to acquire a competitor, except they both need to raise money. As far as I know, to become \"\"proficient\"\" in that field, the only way is to go through heaps of case studies, which won't be found easily outside of the financial world (sell side research, conversation with experienced buy side analysts/PMs/traders or sell side cap markets pros). It is niche knowledge with a narrow focus and a high potential for value added, hence, not really widely shared. The good news though is that it isn't really that complex, it just takes (lots of) work and being in the right place (internship or entry level position in a market or M&amp;A oriented bank).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cce6cba937675492b25a92c5906c67f", "text": "\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f617125f90004d1be781ecd016139541", "text": "There is no way to find out what future will be if you have only quote from past. In other words, nobody is able to trade history successfully and nobody will be able, ever. Quote's movement is not random. Quote is not price. Because brokerage account is not actual money. Any results in past do not guarantee you anything. Brokerage accounts should only have portions of money which you are ready to loose completely. Example: Investment firms recommended buying falling Enron stocks, even when it collapsed 3 times, then - bankrupt, suddenly. What a surprise!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39cd5f6296d8871d6cd2d2fbb1e9cf07", "text": "I strongly suggest personal referral. Ask all of your friends/family/neighbors/co-workers/dog-sitter what they think of their brokers until you find someone who loves his broker. As for transferring assets, I've found it to be quite easy. It's in the new broker's best interest to get those assets, so he should be more than willing to help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87df5d98561a40f372b987cec46d0d11", "text": "&gt; we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. &gt; we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? &gt; In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cefa73cfa45f438cf139281ac832089", "text": "No. Brokers and HFT are two different entities, mostly. No HFT shops have prior information about a client order. PM me if you want to discuss more in detail. Getting beyond the scope of this post.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d8568e2a1e3363a5d02566be6d3f14", "text": "\"Until you get some financial education, you will be vulnerable to people wanting your money. Once you are educated, you will be able to live a tidy life off this-- which is exactly why this amount was awarded to you, rather than some other amount. They gave you enough money. This is not a lottery win. I mean \"\"financial counselors\"\" who will want to help you with strategies to invest your money. Every one will promise your money will grow. The latter case describes every full-service broker, e.g. what will happen if you walk into EdwardJones. This industry has a long tradition of charmingly selling investments which significantly underperform the market, and making their money by kickbacks (sales commissions) from those investments (which is why they significantly underperform.) They also offer products which are unnecessarily complex meant to confuse customers and hide fees. One mark of trouble is \"\"early exit\"\" fees, which they need to recoup the sales commission they already paid out. Unfortunately, one of those people is you. You are treating this like a windfall, falling into old, often-repeated cliché of \"\"lottery-win thinking\"\". \"\"Gosh, there's so much money there, what could go wrong?\"\" This always ends in disaster and destitution, on top of your other woes. It's not a windfall. They gave you just enough money to live on - barely. Because these lawyers and judges do this all day every day, and they know exactly how much capital will replace a lifelong salary, and if anything you got cheated a bit. Read on. You don't want to feel like greedy Scrooge, hoarding every penny. I get that. But generous spending won't fix that. What will is financial education, and once you have real understanding and certainty about your financial situation, you will be able to both provide for yourself and be giving in a sensible manner. This stuff isn't taught in school. If it was, there'd be a lot more millionaires, because wealth isn't about luck, it's about intelligent management of money. Good advisers do exist. They're hard to find. Good advisors work only one way: for a flat rate or hourly fee. This is called a \"\"Fee-only advisor\"\". S/he never takes commissions. Beware of brokers who normally work on commission but will happily take an upfront fee. Even if they promise to hand you their commission check, they're still recommending you into the same sub-par investments because that's their training! I get the world of finance is extremely confusing and it's hard to know where to start. Just make one leap of faith with me: You can learn this. One place it's not confusing: University endowments. They get windfalls just like you, and they need to manage it to support them for a very long time, just like you. Endowments are very closely watched by the smartest people in finance -- no lottery fever here. It's agreed by all that there is one best way to invest an endowment. And it's mandatory by law. An endowment is a chunk of money (say, $1.2 million) that must fund a purpose (say, a math professorship or \"\"chair\"\") in perpetuity. You're not planning to live quite that long, but when you're in your 20's, the investment strategy is the same. The endowment is designed to generate income of some amount, on average, over the long term. You can draw from the endowment even in \"\"down years\"\". The rule of thumb is 4-6% is a sustainable rate that won't overtax the endowment (usually, but you have to keep an eye on it). On $1.2M, that's $48,000 to $72,000 per year. Not half bad. See, I told you it could work. Read Jane Austen? Mister Darcy, referred to as a gentleman of 10,000 pounds -- meaning his assets were many times that, but they yield income of £10,000 a year. Same idea. Keep in mind that you need to pay taxes. But if you plan your investments so you're holding them more than a year, you're in the much lower 0-10-15% capital gains tax bracket. So, here's where I'd like you to go. I would say more, but this will give you quite an education by itself. Say you gave all your money to me. And said \"\"Your nonprofit needs an executive director. Fund it. In perpetuity.\"\" I'd say \"\"Thank you\"\", \"\"you're right\"\", and I'd create an endowment and invest it about like this. That is fairly close to the standard mix you'll find in most endowments, because that is what's considered \"\"prudent\"\" under endowment law (UPMIFA). I'd carry all that in a Vanguard or Fidelity account and follow Bogle's advice on limiting fees. That said, dollar-cost-averaging is not a suicide pact, and bonds are ugly right now (for reason Suze Orman describes) and real estate seems really bubbly right now... so I'd back out of those for now. I'd aim to draw about $60k/year out of it or 5%, and on average, in the very long term, the capital should grow. I would adjust it downward somewhat if the next few years are a hard recession, to avoid taking too much out of the capital... and resist the urge to take more out in boom years, because that is your hedge against the next recession. Over 7% is not prudent per the law (absent very reasonable reasons). UPMIFA doesn't apply to you, but I'd act as if it did. A very reasonable reason to take more than 7% would be to shift investment into a house for living in. I would aim for a duplex/triplex to also have income from the property, if the numbers made sense, which they often don't in California, but that's another question. At your financial level -- never, never, never give cash to a charity. You will get marked as a \"\"soft target\"\" and every commercial fundraiser on earth will stalk you for the rest of your life. At your level, you open a Donor Advised Fund, and let the Fund do your giving for you. Once you've funded it (which is tax deductible) you later tell them which charities to fund when. They screen out fake charities and protect your identity. I discuss DAFs at length here. Now when \"\"charities\"\" harass you for an immediate handout, just tell them that's not how you support charities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d954f3c92e53a6c2140eb8010c50c40", "text": "\"I have been in a very similar place like that before (as an intern) and got the hell out quickly. Let me try to paint a picture. On the 12th floor of a random NYC midtown building there will be a large office floor with long desks in several rows. Around the outside against the windows will be maybe some empty conference rooms, random senior people you won't be allowed to talk to, and a poor, miserable compliance guy stuck in a backoffice somewhere. Each desk will have a phone and a call sheet. There wont be many computers anywhere - maybe one Bloomberg machine in the back. Every single person in there is on the phone. In fact, that will be your job. Starting at 7:45 sharp, you will be at your desk. At 8 oclock, you will start dialing the call sheet put on your desk. If it is a bunch of residences, you will get angry house wives because their husbands are at work (dont \"\"pitch the bitch\"\"). Next call, you will get someone that passed away 2 years ago - mark your sheet \"\"dead\"\" and cross out as you are dialing the next number. If you manage to get someone that answers their own phone at work and listens to a pitch, you will now get the opportunity to give a grandiose pitch on why a mid market, dividend paying stock is fantastic and should be bought now. \"\"Now\"\" as in you have to open a brokerage account on the first call for no less than a $5k trade. You will pitch them on why they dont need to ask their wife, why you will bring them great ideas. Ask them what is their net worth - have they ever hired a broker over the phone (qualify them) or get hung up on. Anything short of them threatening to call the SEC and cursing you before hanging up means you will be sure to call them again (a prospect actually picking up the phone is about a 1 in 20 dial event) People just slamming the phones on you? - Call them back for fun because you \"\"got disconnected\"\". If you ever manage to get a client, you will be charging them enormous percentages and fees to do simple trades. But dont worry, you probably wont get a client in the first 2 months, and even if you manage to get clients it will be maybe one or two a month. Think about the sheer volume of calls you have to make - 300 - 400 calls a day is probably a normal pace. You will meet the most insane people. People will go down for lunch or coffee and never return to the office. Most of the people there you wonder how they ever passed a series 7. There are people that fail the 7 3 times and quit. There will be a guy that opens 10 accounts a month and actually will be talking with two phones up to his ears at once. This is the definition of a high pressure sales job.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7618f539a831ff550e87f916c911b7e6", "text": "\"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange. I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills. I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print. And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the \"\"NBBO\"\" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8253603feece3672121050234e362da9", "text": "I've noticed that most of the problems seem to occur when they assume I am a new user (the random ones you get for hitting help help) and asking a way more basic question than what I was actually asking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55ffbe3c4ed5d9a8d48556077f5faf7a", "text": "Lol i work at a major prop shop and it is far from retail trading. Existing relations are important and if used well will result in an increased pnl. Also, this is why i was referring to risk adjusted pnl to take into account different firms strategies. Honestly your company might have a different way of doing things but at every prop shop and bank ive worked for my pnl was their primary focus. Edit: i also wouldnt take such a condescending tone if i were you. You are far from the only person on reddit working in the industry.", "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": "590aa6996f150a72de01c54b41dfb58b", "text": "A value of zero or a negative value makes the percent change meaningless. Saying 100% when going from 0 to some other value is simply wrong. I have seen a similar situation several times when looking at a public company with a loss last quarter. On Google Finance or some other service, the PE ratio will be blank, N/A, or something like that. If the company does not currently have earnings, then the PE ratio is meaningless. Likewise, if the company previously did not have earnings, then the percent change of the earnings is meaningless. Also consider the example where the previous value was negative. If the previous value was negative 1 and the current value is positive 99, then this happens: A negative change? But the value went up! Obviously that value does not make sense and should not be shown.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bebf9136552042b7b175f8f18b7ff50", "text": "\"I'd personally display \"\"n/a\"\" The only other answer that makes sense to me other is \"\"infinity\"\" (phone keyboard doesn't allow me to input the symbol). This would at least allow you to show direction by using positive and negative infinity and mathematical as the the initial value approaches zero the percentage change approaches infinity which is the closet you can get to a meaningful value\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384", "text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dff0902175f068b2fc59f801e6972199", "text": "As has been said before, going from nothing to something is an infinite percent increase! It is not 100%. Maybe you had a dollar and now have $101 that is a 10000% increase! Quite remarkable. I often work with symmetrized percent changes like: spc = 100 * (y2-y1)/(0.5 * (y1+y2)) Where I compute the percent with respect to the average. First this is more stable as often measurements can have noise, the average is more reliable. Second advantage is also that this is symmetric. So going from 95 to 105 is a 10 % increase while going from 105 to 95 a 10% decrease. Of course you need to explain what you show.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e898bbf75859f38482dd86f748db8f8c", "text": "\"Anyone who has any business looking at growth numbers will know thay are meaningless in the first year, So all they need to know is that it's the first year. It's no different than the Billboard music charts' treatment of the \"\"last week's chart ranking\"\" and \"\"movement up/down\"\" columns. It will help with visual layout if the figure used is about the same size as a percentage number. \"\"New\"\" fits nicely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee38726681a5935fb3c798007c9782f8", "text": "In computing, you'd generally return naa%, for 'not a number'. Could you not put '-%' to show there is no value at this point? Surely the people seeing this aren't idiots and understand the charge on 0 is 0?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab34fa1e97c390c4c13e64aa2032e11", "text": "What is the probability of a real occasion (meaning not just an example) being exactly zero? Even if you have 0.1 you can still do the math. Also, it is kind of depending on the occasion. For example, you want to calculate the ROI of an investment for which you had zero capital and you made that investment with leverage, meaning you got a loan. In order to get that loan you should have provided a collateral, so in this case as a starting sum you use the collateral. In another example, say EAT it's difficult to have exactly zero. So, in most cases you won't have to deal with zero values, only positives and negatives.", "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": "b4c8cbc3034a103d9df73fef25e0fa3a", "text": "\"When using Time Value of Money equations, you need to know when the flow starts. A mortgage for example, has a first payment at the end of the first time period, usually 1 month. For savings, one can start the account with a deposit of course, or start by saying \"\"I will deposit $XXX at the end of each month. The answer really depends on the exact details of the situation. In your example, I'm inclined to suggest first flow is 1 year out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "175eb77b00771165926f3d2ac67c4b6d", "text": "I think is an excellent idea. Use free money or almost free to do a lump sump payment. My recommendation is to have a reminder to pay credit card before, almost finishing, the 0% APR period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589d5275ed384c541d389fc3a4b612d8", "text": "I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a6861c5a6ac2146025b8a13d9207d3c", "text": "That's pretty typical for introductory problems. It's leading you into an NPV question. They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70d0915408fb98db5d2f5e7cb0c31731", "text": "Assuming cell A1 contains the number of trades: will price up to A1=100 at 17 each, and the rest at 14 each. The key is the MAX and MIN. They keep an item from being counted twice. If X would end up negative, MAX(0,x) clamps it to 0. By extension, if X-100 would be negative, MAX(0, X-100) would be 0 -- ie: that number doesn't increase til X>100. When A1=99, MIN(a1,100) == 99, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=100, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=101, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 1. Of course, if the 100th item should be $14, then change the 100s to 99s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873", "text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f26c59fd47f52343873a025355c1497", "text": "Let's say the money-giver gets apples by you and he gives you money for them. The money you now have is worth to get apples. If the money now would change its value to negative, the roles would change opposites and you'd owe the money-giver (whom you already gave apples to) even more apples. That's simply insane. The worst money value can be is zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eea446cbb3ebab34ec08cdc4dd791dde", "text": "That would have been a good idea. They don't charge interest on a $0 balance, but if you payoff your account after the cycle date, there is a hidden balance and that balance will accrue interest. It is only a few cents a day. I just don't think it is legal for them to refuse to provide you a payoff quote mid cycle. I'm almost certain. When I worked for Discover it was a key point in training to not give the wrong amount and to make sure to use the calculator in the system to quote a daily balance, how much it goes up per day, and how much they should send if they were mailing the payment, giving consideration for the time it takes to receive/process the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bf0d506705cfb813417bf5edc31f44c", "text": "\"Emotion aside, you can calculate the cost of the funds you have tied up at the bank. If I can earn 5% in a CD, my \"\"free\"\" checking with minimum $5000 balance really costs me $250/yr. You have money tied up, I understand, but where would you place it otherwise, and at what return? The subject of frequent trading even at zero cost is worth addressing, but not the real subject of your question. So, I'll leave it for elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bfc351c9143b98206dae397687e2531", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2567d6fa7f6d9b36d7fbb5b5533d52b1", "text": "&gt;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%). I know it was wrong, so how would you approach it? &gt;Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above. All the relevant details I received for the case are here. What other info are you looking for?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa2964de81eca81d7599394cdb34f979", "text": "First of all any loan will have the last payment be slightly different than the rest. Even if the interest rate is zero it is hard to have a perfect monthly payment amount. By perfect I mean the amount of the loan divided by the number of months would be $ddd.cc0000... When looking at the amortization table the last payment will either be slightly higher or lower to adjust for the rounding that was done. My suspicion is that the rounding would have resulted in a left over 12 cents. It is also possible that you are paying it off slightly early and the computer is simply taking the leftover amount an spreading it over the remaining period of the loan. You could be paying it early because for the main part of the loan was paid to a company that rounds all payments to the higher dollar, or has a minimum monthly payment amount. I looked at the company you mentioned in the question, and searched the site for an amortization tool. I found it, and used the pre-filled in example. https://www.edfinancial.com/amortizationschedule?pmts=120&intr=6.8&prin=25000 If that last payment is not adjusted the borrower will still owe $0.12. The fact it equals your situation is a coincidence. But is does show what can happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a", "text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16a624a10ee783824d9bef140250bf4d", "text": "Consider inflation. If you invest $10,000 today, you need to make a few hundred dollars interest just to make up for inflation - if there is 3% inflation then a change from $10,000 to $10,300 means you didn't actually make any money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "838c715b7d504db807ab5448b6489856", "text": "I think examining the effects and potential implications of China's involvement with the stock market may be productive. Some interesting examples would be the failed market circuit breakers and the restrictions of short-selling in 2016. Not sure that this would qualify as a real topic, but may give you food for thought.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "69c800a214fea8ba36b21214ef3e66fc", "text": "Here are the basic questions I usually ask any new business startup: Do these numbers/answers seem reasonable to you and is some benchmark available that allows you to see how likely this is? Remember, particularly in Internet-based advertising ventures, the client may be indirect. The person who clicks on a Google context-based link is not directly Google's client. The person who decided to host AdWords code on their site is the direct client. You're also going to want to see a Gant chart or some process chart indicating exactly what needs to be done, at what cost and by whom. Answers to these questions give a sense of not only how seriously they are taking the business, but also how organised. My final question: who is your first client? They need either someone who is going to contract the service, or have a clear indication of where income is going to come from, on their first day of trading. Their task is to sell their idea to you by proving that it will return on your investment and be profitable. From the strength of these answers you can gauge the value of your investment to them, how critical it is, how risky the opportunity and - ultimately - the stake and returns you should expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c216c7347f7f2e984c95c8be9f6ff19", "text": "In addition to evaluating the business (great answer), consider the potential payoff. If bonds pay off in the 5-10% range, the S&P500 has averged 10.5%. You should be expecting a payoff of 15-20% to invest in something riskier than the stock market. That means that if you invest $10k, then in 5 years you'll need to get out $25K (20% returns over 5 years). If you get less than this much in 5 years, the risk-to-reward ratio probably rules this out as a good investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7967202b7921329aed481174711eebb7", "text": "Turukawa's answer is quite good, and for your own specific situation, you might begin by being sceptical about what you are getting for investing a few thousand dollars. With the exception of Paul Graham's Y-Combinator, there are very few opportunities to invest at that type of level, and Y-Combinator provides a lot of other assistance besides their modest initial investment. I can tell from your post that you think like an investor. It is highly unlikely that the entrepreneurial programmers that you will be backing will be wired that way. From the modest amount that you are investing, you are unlikely to be the lead investor in this opportunity. If you are interested in proceeding, simply stick along for the ride, examining the terms and documents that more significant investors will be demanding. Remain positive and supportive, but simply wait to sign on the dotted line until others have done the heavy lifting. For more insights into startups themselves, see Paul Graham's essays at www.paulgraham.com. He's the real deal, and his recent essays will provide you with current insights about software startups. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c", "text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cbb06328a871c3e1d8c77ce2996a65a", "text": "\"You seem to have all your financial bases covered, and others have given you good financial advice, so I will try to give you some non-financial ideas. The first and most important thing is that you are investing with a long time friend, so the dynamics are a lot different that if you had recently met a stranger with an \"\"interesting\"\" new idea. The first thing you need to ask yourself is if your friendship will survive if this thing doesn't go well? You've already said you can afford to lose the money so that's not a worry, but will there be any \"\"recriminations?\"\" The flip side is also true; if the venture succeeds, you should be able to go further with it because he's your friend. You know your friend better (back to grade school) than almost anyone else, so here are some things to ask yourself: What does your friend have that will give him a chance to succeed; tech savvy, a winning personality, a huge rolodex, general business savvy, something else? If your guardian angel had told you that one of your friends was planning to embark on an internet/advertising venture, is this the one you would have guessed? Conversely, knowing that your friend was planning to do a start up, is this the kind of venture you would have guessed? How does \"\"internet\"\" and \"\"advertising\"\" fit in with what you are doing? If this venture succeeds, could it be used to help your professional development and career, maybe as a supplier or customer? Can you see yourself leaving your current job and joining your friend's (now established) company as a vice president or acting as a member of its board of directors, the latter perhaps while pursuing your current career path? Are your other mutual friends investing? Are some of them more tech savvy than you and better able to judge the company's prospects of success? To a certain extent, there is \"\"safety in numbers\"\" and even if there isn't, \"\"misery loves company.\"\" On the upside, would you feel left out if everyone in your crowd caught \"\"the next Microsoft\"\" except you?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "165c8721276816e9d3741cd78e343015", "text": "Pick one stock (probably within Utilities) and know it well. Understand what it trades on (EV / EBITDA, P / E, P / Rev) and why. What are the typical margins for the industry? What are rev growth trends? What isn't priced in? I think studying one company deeply would be helpful Other things to look at would be how your fund is structured, what it's benchmark is, voting structure, and how ideas are sourced Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9dfd9882440e9eca8007f26cbf5b59", "text": "a great piece dedicated to all secured business loan applicants out there. it offers information on what entrepreneurs should look for in start up financing deals to ensure that the lines of credit they will take out will surely suit the needs and budget of their respective shops and stores.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679eb828bed561f59847c1dff5f643c1", "text": "No, as in just coming up start up. I'm sure that's the case but then again there must be some basic software that can make my life easier right? Like accounting softwares, etc that do not depend on the industry the startup is working in. Any?", "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": "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": "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": "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": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d", "text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8484f24d0c259e02cb1c1a590e2d52", "text": "\"A lot of investors prefer to start jumping into tools and figuring out from there, but I've always said that you should learn the theory before you go around applying it, so you can understand its shortcomings. A great starting point is Investopedia's Introduction to Technical Analysis. There you can read about the \"\"idea\"\" of technical analysis, how it compares to other strategies, what some of the big ideas are, and quite a bit about various chart patterns (cup and handle, flags, pennants, triangles, head & shoulders, etc). You'll also cover ideas like moving averages and trendlines. After that, Charting and Technical Analysis by Fred McAllen should be your next stop. The material in the book overlaps with what you've read on Investopedia, but McAllen's book is great for learning from examples and seeing the concepts applied in action. The book is for new comers and does a good job explaining how to utilize all these charts and patterns, and after finishing it, you should be ready to invest on your own. If you make it this far, feel free to jump into Fidelity's tools now and start applying what you've learned. You always want to make the connection between theory and practice, so start figuring out how you can use your new knowledge to generate good returns. Eventually, you should read the excellent reference text Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets by John Murphy. This book is like a toolbox - Murphy covers almost all the major techniques of technical analysts and helps you intuitively understand the reasoning behind them. I'd like to quote a part of a review here to show my point: What I like about Mr. Murphy is his way of showing and proving a point. Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then \"\"derive\"\" this and \"\"understand\"\" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and \"\"derive\"\" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go \"\"wow...\"\"\"\" Now I understand why this occurs\"\". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!\"", "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": "d4b7a84d38a6e0206518d8453f5ea09a", "text": "For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests.", "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": "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": "2cce48ba0b70d943ddbae37ddfaaee0e", "text": "Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f422c0f802ac7f1df127f96a2e1c1e2", "text": "It's perfectly legal for your brother to make a loan to you. However those two transactions are separate. If he defaults on the LC loan because you didn't pay him, it's his responsibility. If you default on your loan with him, you've got big problems. Money + family/friends = scary.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "268e69dc5931c26a823eba881d202228", "text": "Conceptually, the entries are: Yes. And since you're the sole owner, your basis will equal to the equity balance on the balance sheet. Keep in mind the book and tax basis will probably be different, so you may want to keep a separate calculation to track the tax basis. There is no journal additional journal entry for this. If you're using bookkeeping software, be sure to research its book-closing/closing entries feature, as it is handled differently depending on the software. For example Quickbooks doesn't explicitly close its books, but re-computes the balance sheet dynamically depending on the selected date range.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c356e65fae1f20d399d29664a93e6301", "text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed9e547c7fe50befd984c0eaa6a63f05", "text": "The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.", "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": "22dcd0ba9de89e97f557a7a9a927f198", "text": "Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate. As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf38dce82645ae04c92ffe7f51c40d0a", "text": "An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69cae92454c28e2e4d04cda5494408f7", "text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd1d479b3ef0591db81ed22afc57b378", "text": "\"I'm not personally familiar with this, but I had a look at the Companies House guidance. Unfortunately, it seems you've done things in the wrong order. You should have first got the funds out, distributed them to yourself as a dividend or salary, and then closed the account, and then wound up the company. Legally speaking, the remaining funds now belong to the government (\"\"bona vacantia\"\"). It's possible you could apply to have the company restored, but I think that might be difficult; I don't think the administrative restoration procedure applies in your situation. Given the amount involved, I'd suggest just forgetting about it.\"", "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": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93", "text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef47ed887fa8f884430c6b071e1e720", "text": "This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96f824981dbe9557d71896527caa0655", "text": "The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e23eda4b8b64a62749c8eb12447ab724", "text": "\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e283bf3970ba22d343d192d4c3512665", "text": "If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de92587f4c34d0733ffc73a07c95127c", "text": "FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed78f35d2db90200e5a3c241f8caba8d", "text": "In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d98a9fdc558f51d568b4ed6a592c7776", "text": "I would suggest following your quote and having a read of the web page supplied, that buys then sells or sells short then buys (the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, ... So it is a two way transaction that counts as 'one'.", "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": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d", "text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "739a5cc8792b387f4c5766483658062d", "text": "The dynamics of different contracts and liquidity can be quite different on the last day on the month and for intraday trade make sure you use bid-ask data as opposed to historical trades. I'm not saying whether it works or not, but im just giving you ideas to improve your testing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8ffca6f177412197c30e9a59db75767", "text": "I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares. There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability. Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade.", "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": "a43d0a13a01babe7f87b6ccb7c57d41d", "text": "the strategy is tested all the way to 97. how is the continuous series backadjusted? the emini is rolledover and Ratio back adjusted to the 2nd nearest contract, 9 days prior to expiration. since it is an intraday trade, the discrepancy to the real thing should be next to irrelevant. but comparing it to the spx could make it interesting. what would be a good format to present the results ? jpeg? pdf ?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31be2354e66b8c8d907fe6f1052f9a87", "text": "Yes, exactly. VaR is just a single tailed confidence interval. To go from model to strategy, you need to design some kind of indicator (i.e. when to buy and when to short or stay out). In practice, this will look like a large matrix with values ranging from -1 to 1 (corresponding to shorting and holding respectively) for each security and each day (or hour, or minute, or tick, etc.), which you then just multiply with the matrix of the stock returns. The resulting matrix will be your daily returns for each stock, you can then just row sum for daily returns of a portfolio, or calculate a cumulative product for cumulative returns. A simple example of an indicator would be something like a value of 1 when the price of the stock is below the 30 day moving average, and 0 otherwise. You can use a battery of econometric models to design these indicators, but the rest of the strategy design is essentially the same, and it's *relatively* easy to build a one-size-fits-all back-testing code. I'll try to edit this post later and link a blog that goes through some of the code. Edit: [Here](http://www.signalplot.com/simple-machine-learning-model-trade-spy/) is a post that discusses implementing a simple ML strategy. You can ignore most of the content but if you go through the github, you'll see how the ML model is implemented as a strategy. An even easier example can be found from [the github connected to this post](http://www.signalplot.com/how-to-measure-the-performance-of-a-trading-strategy/), where the author is just using a totally arbitrary signal. As you can see, deriving a signal can be a ton of work, but once you have, actually simulating the strategy can be done in just a few lines of code. Hopefully the author won't mind me linking his page here, but I find his coding style to be very clean and good for educational purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "464f8325d26e0675c5b7458a4f9fdcfa", "text": "There are Patterns inside of Patterns. You will see short term patterns (flags / pennants) inside of long term patterns (trend lines, channels) and typically you want to trade those short term patterns in line with the direction of the long term pattern. Take a look at the attached chart of GPN. I would like to recommend two excellent books on Chart Patterns. Richard W. Schabacker book he wrote in the 1930's. It is the basis for modern technical pattern analysis. Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits Peter Brandt Diary of a Professional Commodity Trader. He takes you through analysis and trades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c3f732a5bc61311ac05e7b3b95984e3", "text": "This strategy is called trading the 'Golden Cross' if the 50 day SMA moves above the 200 day, or the 'Death Cross' when the 50 day SMA moves below the 200 day SMA. Long-term indicators carry more weight than shorter-term indicators, and this cross, in a positive direction signals a change in momentum of the stock. You will not catch the very bottom using this method, but there is a better chance that you will catch a move near the beginning of a longer-term trend. Golden Cross Information - Zacks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af", "text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcdd10c5964c4972aaf30b0295a2c64", "text": "\"The American \"\"Security Exchange Commission\"\" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is \"\"Regulation-T\"\". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account. A \"\"Day Trader's\"\" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T. It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13e66e7b5bb601ced10427a971fb9003", "text": "According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "529e9dd9e67e4159ad7c8e03aca7a20c", "text": "Very common question. There is no any rule of thumb. This solely depends on your trading strategy. I will share my own experience. My day starts with the daily chart, if I have a signal, either I open my position or I check 30 minute chart to make sure that it won't go too much against my trade. and I open my position. If I am waiting for the signal the minimum timeframe is 4 hours for me. I use 30 minutes to find the best time to enter the market. So, this is totally something special for my trading strategy, that is why those things can change based on the different strategies. I also check weekly and monthly charts to confirm trend. I have been busy with forex since 2007 and I am a verified investor on etoro At the end, I never use 1,5,15,60 minute charts as they are against my strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a00236aa266c91d0603faef7599e53", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"", "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": "bbeb069f1de0e2d785f8e9e064473933", "text": "Your initial investment in this case is $9 on the first morning. Every other morning you are using part of your profits to buy the new piece of jewelry, so you are actually not investing any new funds. So each day you are effectively keeping $1 of your profits and re_re-investing $9. But your initial investment of your own funds is only the first $9. In other words if you only had $9 in the bank at the start of the year you could make $365 profits during the year and finish up with $374 in the the bank at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1d9f5d3082c56a7ec09dd85568cf233", "text": "Not sure if your question is on topic, but the investment is only $9 because that is maximum amount of money the merchant ever needed to start up the business. He put in $9, started turning a profit, and never looked back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c84630cb3985c0afd1b9c2511f4e0c91", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a02957a9a32e31d2f640034772b0d3af", "text": "You're confused because the source you cite leaves out one number that isn't relevant to the argument they're making: total costs. The number you're expecting, $9 x 365 or $3285 is the total cost of buying the jewelry which, when subtracted from the $3650 sales volume gives us the net profit of $365. The investment is the amount of money original put into a system our company. In this case the merchant bought his first piece of jewelry for $9, sold it for $10, took one dollar in profit and used the other 9 to reinvest by buying a new piece of jewelry. We can extend the analogy further. After 9 days of selling, the merchant will posses $18, allowing him to now buy 2 pieces of jewelry each morning and sell them for $20. Every day his costs will be $18 and he'll turn a $2 profit, all with the original investment of $9.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "562cf5f8bea78900424088a69bd50c94", "text": "Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.", "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": "ceb0169d967e05a1d9e2cb1df64a3729", "text": "It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bcd6fc62d1f29e86f26fab0153d16a1", "text": "&gt; From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down. That *is* how profit is attained. However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions. If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.", "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": "c9e6b039d5ab2e479f5befaba52149c0", "text": "\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3", "text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"", "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": "eb062ad09e86c6c2b92f755081412ea5", "text": "\"You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock. Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as \"\"do not reduce\"\") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "795835496c8e45d42558433f2339eb59", "text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cf826e207e5f01ea2e94f901200987e", "text": "\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7cd157197402aa1a8b2a3dc933137c", "text": "\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ced0eec88f0ff8ca5c9fb5e786ee9731", "text": "\"What you did is called a \"\"strangle.\"\" It's rather unlikely that both will be exercised on the same day. But yes, it can happen. That is if the market is very volatile on a given day, so that the stock hits 13 in the morning, the put gets exercised, and then hits 15 later in the day, so the call gets exercised. Or vice versa. More to the point, the prices are close enough that one might be hit on one day, and the other on a DIFFERENT day. In either case, if one side gets hit, you need to reevaluate your position in the other. But basically, any open position you have can be hit at any time. The only way to avoid this risk is not to have positions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181", "text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec", "text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c00f8c665e4ec0b23f34c604d02a242", "text": "\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d722e7576e39a0409b6c1eba39447e38", "text": "In general over the longer term this is true, as a company whom continuously increases earnings year after year will generally continue to increase its share price year after year. However, many times when a company announces increased earning and profits, the share price can actually go down in the short term. This can be due to the market, for example, expecting a 20% increase but the company only announcing a 10% increase. So the price can initially go down. The market could already have priced in a higher increase in the lead up to the announcement, and when the announcement is made it actually disapoints the market, so the share price can go down instead of up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1", "text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.", "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": "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": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344", "text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532b401ff5231afc707f25204765076c", "text": "A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe185e1d074f6ebf2fe638058bf87b2", "text": "Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "336984e37cb89b35c1815137305e8800", "text": "Prices can go up or down for a variety of reasons. If interest rates decline typically every stock goes up, and vice versa. Ultimately, there are two main value-related factors to a price of a stock: the dividends the company may issue or the payoff in the event the company is bought by someone else. Any dividend paid will give concrete value to a stock. For example, imagine a company has shares selling at $1.00 and they announce that they will pay a dividend at the end of the year of $1.00 per share. If their claim is believable then the stock is practically FREE at $1.00 a share, so in all likelihood the stock will go up a lot, just on the basis of the dividend alone. If a company is bought by another, they need to buy at least a majority of the shares, and in some cases all the shares. Since the price the buyer will be willing to pay for the company is related to its potential future income for the buyer, the more profitable the company is, the more a buyer will be willing to pay and hence the greater the value of the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49af1a7aa7b174792ea7e082421cc332", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b42364f8eb819cf045e88bb58afbaca", "text": "Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving. Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night. Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f313648abe18b604213f4933b8a1916b", "text": "No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c23a0157305f44f8188c6b44ff7c5ac", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d", "text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1410bf64e236bfa3179df8388872d022", "text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ 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": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b", "text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84cbadbf74d336dd11ac4556a53dc886", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08e3908c35c115650acb1de2f67303e9", "text": "It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155", "text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "288d276228f14c790a00ed38f2cbcab0", "text": "Go to the police. This is fraud and is illegal. Sure, this will hurt your friend but better now then when he starts abusing of his position to fraud even more people... Original comment by Bakuriu sorry for not giving credit", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b93a0cb7b43428d2589f99299d68934", "text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "138650c4890cb9a76d2737a5d6ab1288", "text": "\"I will disagree with some of the other answers here. In my view, the most important dimension of the situation is not your friend's potential loss but the potential losses of the people he may convince by using his position as youth group leader, etc., to draw more them into the scam. Exactly how to handle this depends on many factors that aren't mentioned in your question (and probably rightly so, as this aspect of the situation moves beyond personal finance). For instance, if your friend is a \"\"pillar of the community\"\" who is widely trusted, and you are not, there may be little you can do, since people will believe him and not you. If you have some influence over the groups he is trying to recruit, you can attempt to provide a counterweight to his recruitment activities. Again, how to do this depends on other factors, such as how he is recruiting them. If he is just privately contacting individuals and inviting them to these meetings, you may have to just keep your eyes peeled for anyone who seems tempted and try to dissuade them before they suffer the \"\"brainwashing\"\". If he actually tries to do some sort of public recruitment (e.g., holding a meeting himself), you could try to inject doubt by, e.g., attending and asking probing questions to expose the dangers. If you think the danger is widespread, you could consider taking some more public action, like writing a column in a local paper about this organization. Of course, another major factor is how much you think people stand to lose by this. However, in your question you indicated that your friend has invested \"\"multiple month or years of income\"\". If he intends to pressure others to invest similar amounts, this sounds to me like enough danger to warrant some preventive action. Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut. In doing this, you may lose your friendship. However, you stated that your goal is to resolve the situation in a way that is \"\"best with lowest loss of money for everybody\"\". If you really take this utilitarian view, it is likely that you may have to give up on the friendship to prevent other people from losing more money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bdff9ed0ed8e5a4578c05b5668c99b8", "text": "\"Even though this is really a psychology question, I'll try to give you an answer. You do nothing but stay away. What's going on is too small to matter. Bernie Madoff took investor's money and scammed them for $15B. That's B, billion, 9 zeros (Yes, I realize the UK Billion has 12, these are US Billion). Harry Markopolos was on to him, and presented his evidence to the government, but \"\"No one would listen.\"\" In quotes because that's the title of the book he published on his experience. Even Barron's had an article suggesting that Madoff's returns were impossible. Eventually, it came to light. In my own experience, there was a mortgage acceleration product called \"\"Money Merge Account.\"\" It claimed to help you pay off your mortgage in a fraction of the time \"\"with no change to your budget.\"\" For two years or so, I was obsessed with exposing this scam, and wrote articles, nearly every week discussing every aspect of this product. Funny how even though mortgages are math that's pretty easy to explain, few sellers wanted to talk about the math. Using the same logic that you don't need to understand how a car works as long as you know how to drive. There were some people that would write to tell me I saved them the $3500 cost of that product, but mostly I argued with sellers who dismissed every word I wrote as if the math were incomprehensible to anyone but the software guys who wrote it. In the end, I had compiled a PDF with over 60 pages of my writing on the topic, and decided to call it quits. The product was recycled and now is sold as \"\"Worth Unlimited,\"\" but the software is the same. This is all a tangent to your problem. It simply offers the fact that the big scam, Bernie, continued for a long time, and people who were otherwise intelligent, fell for his promises, and didn't want to believe otherwise. The mortgage software had many bloggers writing. Searching on the web found a lot of discussion, very easy to find. People will believe what they wish. Tell an Atheist that God exists, or a believer that He doesn't, and your words will fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, this is no different.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc94e748641fbea1f9ec537de1b992ba", "text": "\"First, there are MLM businesses that are legitimate and are not Ponzi schemes; I actually work with one (I will not name it lest I give the impression of trying to sell here). One thing I learned was how to respond when a prospect raises objections related to the actual scams, which are abundant; the answer being to point out, and you mentioned this yourself, that in an illegitimate scheme, there is no actual product being offered - the only thing money is ever spent on is the expectation of a future profit. Ask your friend, \"\"Would you buy the product this company sells, at the price they ask, if there were not a financial opportunity attached to it?\"\" If not, \"\"How can you expect anyone else to buy it from you?\"\" There are only 3 ways he can respond to this question: he can realize that you're right and get out now; he can change the subject to the concept of making money by climbing the ranks and earning off of a salesforce, in which case it's time to educate him on Ponzi; or he can claim to be able to sell something he doesn't believe in, in which case you should run fat, far away. If he does indicate that he would be a customer even without the chance to sell the product, then offer him the chance to prove it, by giving you one sales pitch on the condition that he is not allowed to breathe a word about joining the business. Do him the courtesy of listening with an open mind, and decide for yourself whether you could ever be a customer. If the possibility exists, even if not today, he has found one of the few legitimate MLM companies, and you should not try to stop him. If not, you'll have to determine whether it's because the product just isn't for you, or because it's inherently worthless, and whether you should encourage or discourage your friend going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bc1ec1dffc69de084d9bb843f03b221", "text": "\"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money. In addition to that, there is that fact that he \"\"believes\"\" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it. So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise. You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed. Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be. Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. \"\"Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics.\"\" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions. If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7164feb9ee4f3426bd83df83e9784f9", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f606940b8bf3f1e2be77666f0e26ffe5", "text": "The title of your question basically asks: What can I do? And you state this regarding the meeting and “advice” they gave towards criticism of their method: While this they also indoctrinated that you should avoid talking to people talking bad about it (or say it is scam) because you gain no money from them and they just want to destroy your business. First, you really cannot do anything to “save” your friend if they have bought this nonsense. You are right, it’s a scam. But past stating as such to your friend, there is not much you can do past shielding yourself. The reality is this: Any scenario you are in where you cannot ask basic questions and get a reasonable response or are given—at least—the option to walk away unscathed or uninsulated is basically a cult-like mentality. Simple as that. If the first thing someone tells you is “Don’t listen to others, just listen to me…” then you need to excuse yourself to go to the bathroom or something and just leave. From my personal experience meeting people who are successful and have power, they always—and I mean always—ask questions and are critical of things they invest in… Whether that investment is time, money or just basic mental energy. Rich people are just like you and me! Except they have more money so they can take bigger risks. Critical thinking and the ability to walk away from something are key life skills. Now others have talked salesman psychology which is on point. But here is something else you brought up in your question: He also wants to use his position as respected member of multiple local youth and other communities to get their members as referals or in his words “…to give them the oppurtunity to also simply earn money.” Okay, so you can set personal boundaries between you and this clown, but you cannot stop him. But if he plans on targeting people and organizations in your community, you can warn them about him and his behavior and this scam. Chances are other people will know right away it’s a scam, but honestly if you feel the need to help others, that’s the most reasonable thing you can do to help them. But whatever you do, don’t take any of this emotional crap personally. If anything, maybe you can learn some reverse salesman techniques to get this “friend” to disengage. Such as only meeting with them in public and if they say something really vile to you, repeating what they said back to them as a question… Maybe even louder so everyone can hear. Remember a harsh reality of life: Public shaming can work to change someone’s behavior but you never want to do something like that unless you have utterly no choice. That last bit of advice is pretty harsh, but the reality is at some point you need to do something to “smack” reality into the situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cbe5453859af2169916484557119e0e", "text": "As others have stated, it will be very difficult for you to turn your friend around. He has already demonstrated great commitment. What can I do? There may be other people (perhaps mutual friends of you and this man) who are in danger. He may try to get them into this (as he apparently tried to with you). If this was me, I would try to warn the mutual friends of me and him. It's easier to get to them before they have been exposed to the brainwashing. So I would: Yes, I realize this means you're going behind his back, talking to his friends, etc. But I believe these people also deserve to be warned. They are in danger of being adversely affected by what he is doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dec1ba6f3dd47b30b895677f50e5cfc8", "text": "Chances are high your friend isn't in it for the money, but the community or some vague dream of having a future income-generating side business because he can't get a loan for a 7-11 franchise. I run a few successful online businesses and had an import/export so naturally I run into these guys looking for advice on selling their MLM wares easier. I always point out they can make a lot of money cutting out the middle man MLM distributor and buy the same products from eBay or the same local supplier the MLM uses for a fraction of costs...then collect all the profit sans kickbacks to their host MLM goon/sponsor/father. I've never had anyone that bailed on the MLM, but I could see their eyes gloss over after they realized their own middle man is holding them back from making a lot of money (assuming they could offload that stuff). People actually in it for the money tend to bail (better sales job exist, MLM dreams don't pay rent, etc.) so you'll probably just need to isolate your friend from these losers somehow. You could investigate his sponsor and find out how much money he's actually making....if he tells your friend he's rich, but you find out he lives in the slums with his mom, your friend might bail on friendship/association with the group out of sheer disgust. It's the friends, not the logic you need to attack. His MLM friends would consider it a betrayal if he left them so you need to show him it's the MLM group that's betrayed his friendship. Point out all the long-term members driving junky cars to events who brag about their $$$. Laugh at the piss poor finance credentials of the local group leaders....ask where the investor perks are and suggest the sponsor/leaders are just hording them. Point out that he's a success and the fellow team members are just milking him to prop up their failing investments/sales/recruitment numbers. Nobody wants to let a team down....but the team isn't good enough for him. Deep down he knows the logic is questionable or at least risky/improbable, but his faith in the good intentions of his MLM cohorts is high.....crush that faith and all he's left with is bad finance tips or cheap protein shakes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7972dd39bc25c4136e567baa0e8857d9", "text": "The one thing your friend needs to understand is for every dollar paid out, there is somebody paying that dollar in. The mark of a Ponzi scheme is that it feeds on itself. The stock market has trade volumes where it almost meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme. However, it deals with shares in actual production facilities (rather than only financial institutions) and provides means of production in return for large amounts of the profits. So there is someone legitimately expecting to pay back more than he gets out, in return for the availability of money at a time where he could not finance matters except by credit. With your friend's scheme, there is nobody expected to pay more than he gets out. Nail him down with that: every dollar paid out has to be paid in. Who is the one paying? At this point of time, it sounds like there will be two possible outcomes. You'll be visiting your friend in debtors' prison, or you'll visit him in criminal prison. If you highly value your friendship, you might get him out of the former with your own money. You won't be able with the latter. And if you let him exploit his standing for scamming his community, make no mistake, it will be the latter. I don't envy you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a8ad978393dbd6e80020a151f705f7", "text": "If this 'scam' has a name, address and/or phone number, I forward it to the FBI anonymously. That is my advice. You may also wish to consult a lawyer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee8d4a941cc76b83c804066b7e40877", "text": "Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam. No real business acts like this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dbf1ca1216e00be176e51ba0e68045c", "text": "I don't want to repeat things that have already been said as I agree with most of them. There's just one little thing I'd like to add: If things go the way we're all expecting, this guy will eventually be in desperate need of a friend as he is extremely likely to lose most of his friends sooner or later. Perhaps all you can do is signal that you will not support him now (for obvious reasons), but that you'll be there for him when he may need you in the future...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "74a47b8b12f7afd06fd333b7b5426df5", "text": "The thing that gets so many people is that multilevel marketing isn't inherently a scam. It has all of the potential that they try to sell you on. It just so happens that every friend you have doesn't have an infinite supply of friend networks completely unrelated to anyone you know, so once you get three or four people in the same area in on an MLM, or if you try to join not realizing that there are already people in on it, and ESPECIALLY if you get in on MLM without knowing ANYTHING about he product aside from the MLM opportunities for your potential marks, or without knowing anything about sales in general, then people start getting screwed. MLM is cancer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb78796e5f2623079542684e26439d8e", "text": "I feel like the new mlm schemes are 'pay a thousand dollars for my blue print which will help you develop the business of your dreams and earn 100k a month!' A lady contacted me about training because she couldn't afford one of those 'courses'. And I was like a) I have ten years experience in this I did not decide to do it overnight and b) it's high pressure and stressful as f.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d85f2317a218c57cbb8d3f379432d4f9", "text": "Sadly, the Executive and BOD cashed-in on this a long time ago. History tells us that any claw-backs that the courts seek will represent just a tiny fraction of the overall gains taken in by the scam. Equally sad, any further fines and penalties levied against WF will be taken out of the hides of the lowest level investors and employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "895e63c8636a4fec7a755864ecc4eefb", "text": "There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6ea9d616b30c9973b74157e9df43187", "text": "Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things, even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7c5e4e1d4dac0d2cd9ce2faf49df5d", "text": "\"Sounds like a Ponzi scheme, amplified by social media. Ponzi schemes always rely on some \"\"winners\"\" to say they are winners, so they can grow the pot. If you put in $100 and got out $120, that's the $20 the operator pays so that the next guy who puts in $100 gets back... zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6", "text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb23133354ef50cc316f1e26656eef42", "text": "Its not about her trying to fuck you over. Its about yourself, herself and her brother not taking into account the risk and assuming this is easy money. Legality is the easy part. Competing in the market and coming out on top is the hard part. There are probably hundreds of people just like her brother thinking that setting up a weed shop is a get rich quick scheme.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6656967ba487892e9921b4bb5f12ca72", "text": "\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6cd64b327e02bb97e1b3893e3d5adb2", "text": "Apparently this stuff is through Amway, which screws all of the little guys over to help make somebody else a bunch of money. It's a load of bs you don't want to get involved with. Glad I found that out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d329e887d7499a6cd163013dc560b17", "text": "\"The first question I have to ask is, why would your \"\"friend\"\" even be considering something so ridiculous? There are so many variations of the banking scam running around, and yet people can't seem to see them for what they are -- scams. The old saying \"\"there's no such thing as a free lunch\"\" really comes into play here. Why would anyone send you/your friend $3,000.00 just because they \"\"like you\"\"? If you can't come up with a rational answer to that question then you know what you (or your friend) should do -- walk away from any further contact with this person and never look back! Why? Well, the simple answer is, let's assume they DO send you $3,000.00 by some means. If you think there aren't strings attached then all hope is lost. This is a confidence scam, where the scammer wins your trust by doing something nobody would ever do if they were trying to defraud you. As a result, you feel like you can trust them, and that's when the games really begin. Ask yourself this -- How long do you think it will be (even assuming the money is sent) before they'll talk you into revealing little clues about yourself that allow them to develop a good picture of you? Could they be setting you up for some kind of identity theft scheme, or some other financial scam? Whatever it is, you'd better believe the returns for them far outweigh the $3,000.00 they're allegedly going to send, so in a sense, it's an investment for them in whatever they have planned for you down the road. PLEASE don't take the warnings you get about this lightly!!! Scams like this work because they always find a sucker. The fact that you're asking the question in the first place means you/your \"\"friend\"\" are giving serious thought to what was proposed, and that's nothing short of disaster if you do it. Leave it be, take the lesson for what it's worth before it costs you one red cent, and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003", "text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9c509c589da4a1113de7886d63dc888", "text": "Firstly, you haven't traded long enough. Secondly, you have just had a lot of luck that most of your trades came back. Thirdly, you should develop a trading strategy having entry rules, exit rules and risk management rules (never trade on margin without risk management or stop losses). Lastly, never trade on intuition or your emotions, stick to your plan, cut your losses small and early, and let your profits run.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "274f148b0a145f15618ebf92b4b0a936", "text": "\"You most definitely can invest such an amount profitably, but it makes it even more important to avoid fees, um, at all costs, because fees tend to have a fixed component that will be much worse for you than for someone investing €200k. So: Edit: The above assumes that you actually want to invest in the long run, for modest but relatively certain gains (maybe 5% above inflation) while accepting temporary downswings of up to 30%. If those €2000 are \"\"funny money\"\" that you don't mind losing but would be really excited about maybe getting 100% return in less than 5 years, well, feel free to put them into an individual stock of an obscure small company, but be aware that you'd be gambling, not investing, and you can probably get better quotes playing Roulette.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e489042542faae2282f064257d66c6f", "text": "I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8e045cba2e5d73fed29f265fb029987", "text": "You might want to consider 'investing' a portion of that money into educating yourself. The payoff might not be as immediately obvious or gratifying but with appropriate determination, in the long term it will generate you a much greater return. If you would like to learn about investing, a great starting point would be to buy and read the book 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. This will be a great barometer for how ready you are to invest in the stock market. If you are able to understand the concepts discussed and comprehend why they are important, you will have gone far in ensuring that you will make adequate returns over your lifetime and will - more importantly - increase the odds of safeguarding your capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76ac0ccef92f402277009b4b0bb59ed5", "text": "I have an opposite view from all the other contributions here. Why not consider starting your own business. With the little money you have the return will most times be much higher than stocks return. The business is yours; you keep the business and the profit streams in the long term. Simply find businesses you can even start with a 100 or 200 euros and keep the rest with your bank. this is a sure way to become millionaire my friends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3ea390af4c36f7d00ae4953829b23ff9", "text": "I like your enthusiasm and initiative. However, there are a few things you need to consider that you haven't yet thought about. First, it is important to remember that trading with fake money is not the same as trading with real money. In the fake world, you have $100k. With this fake money, you can do reckless things with it, such as put it all on one stock. If you lose, it costs you nothing, so you don't have an emotional attachment to it. With real money, it will feel different, and that is something you haven't experienced yet. Second, you mentioned that you are good at making picks. With all due respect, I suggest that you aren't old enough to make that determination. You haven't been trading for long enough to determine if you are doing well at it. :) That having been said, I don't want to completely discourage you from trying something new. Third, you mentioned long-term investing, but you also said that you need to make your money back quick and mentioned trading daily. Those things aren't really compatible. I wouldn't consider what you are doing as long-term investing. With the type of investing you are doing, picking individual stocks and hoping for the value to go up in a relatively short time-frame, it is similar to gambling. The risk of losing is very much there, and you shouldn't be investing money this way that you aren't prepared to lose. If you need the money for something soon, don't put it in the stock market. Never forget this. What can happen is that you start with small amounts of money, do well, and then, thinking that you are good at this, put in larger amounts of money. You will eventually lose. If you put in money that you need for something else, you have a problem. If you are trying this out for education and entertainment purposes, that is great. But when it starts to get serious, make sure that you are aware of the risks. Educate yourself and be smart. Here is what I would suggest: If you want to try this short-term day-trading type investing, and you understand that the money can easily be lost, I would balance that with investing in a more traditional way: Set aside an amount each month to put in a low-expense index mutual fund. Doing this will have several benefits for you: As for your specific questions about stock trading with small amounts: Yes, you can trade with small amounts; however, every time you trade, you will be paying a commission. Even with a discount broker, if you are trading frequently, the commissions you will be paying will be very significant at the dollar amounts you are talking about. The only way I can see around this would be to try the Robinhood app, which allows you to trade without paying sales commission. I have no experience with that app.", "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": "da4d9bd8bb3891fc78d8965d83723ad1", "text": "TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "764dee227ea830455f3ebacea7bd0685", "text": "Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b", "text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d407dde09a02878064db1dc11e7a5df2", "text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883c1dcbb0385662c5cdd009952764cc", "text": "Dollar Cost Averaging would be the likely balanced approach that I'd take. Depending on the size of the sum, I'd likely consider a minimum of 3 and at most 12 points to invest the funds to get them all working. While the sum may be large relative to my net worth, depending on overall scale and risk tolerance I could see doing it in a few rounds of purchasing or I could see taking an entire year to deploy the funds in case of something happening. I'd likely do monthly investments myself though others may go for getting more precise on things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6dd7a2645f242a961291a46e6da89f8", "text": "\"There are several brokerages which have lower minimum deposits (often $500) and allow purchase of index ETFs. I won't name them to avoid advertising. The best way to find out is to go to your bank, and ask to see a financial advisor. Then explain your difficulty to the advisor (who should caution you about the issues with investing such a small amount) and ask for advice on where to find a suitable broker. Also, sometimes banks offer services where you can buy shares of a fund through your bank account. This is probably not \"\"as good\"\" as the brokerage (performance may be not as good, fees may come out higher), but especially for small amounts and for convenience, this may be easier. Again, you should inquire at your institution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f18f367b4b8b041cb81a43befb98db03", "text": "I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5790337078c1c0fd24948a1f5458e974", "text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d57b67ca815daf49301d978bbff5b9", "text": "\"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for \"\"robo investor\"\".\"", "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": "778006d5a019572e5ed98df5e0526ad3", "text": "If you have little investing experience, you shouldn't involve yourself in leveraged investments or short-term speculation at all. You will probably just lose money. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? If you have little investing experience, you should not attempt to make a lot of money on a small investment at all. You will probably just lose money. The best way to invest with a small amount of money is to put it in a low-cost, mainstream investment product (like an index fund), and wait and save money until you have more. By that time, you may decide that leaving the money in a low-cost index fund is actually the best thing to do anyway. (Incidentally, I don't know if fund minimums are different in the UK, but in the US, an amount equivalent to £100 might not even be enough to start, so you might have to just put it in a savings account until you save enough to even buy into a mutual fund.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fedc731ab6ca2dc898e6b0f3972279a9", "text": "\"Put it in a Vanguard fund with 80% VTI and 20% VXUS. That's what you'll let set for 10-15 years. For somebody that is totally new to investing, use \"\"play money\"\" in the stock market. It's easy for young people to get dreams of glory and blow it all on some stock tip they've seen on Twitter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "de0cb9aa92c18b05a351ad3b895cfe13", "text": "If you are trying to invest in closely held / private companies (things that don't trade on the stock market), you will run into a variety of regulatory problems. For various reasons, most private companies only raise funds with accredited investors. To be an accredited investor you basically have to have $1,000,000 in net worth - NOT including your primary residence, OR you have to make over $200,000 a year for the last two years and expect to keep making that much. This is a class distinction the Federal government created, you will see different but similar wealth and investment classes worldwide. So your best most organized opportunities are left out, unless you do qualify as an accredited investor. There are tons of other companies, things you will find locally, that will let you invest in their smaller time operations. (Think like a local yoga studio looking for $20,000 and willing to split the profits with you). But the problem here is lack of accountability, where partners skip town or just stop answering your calls, and the legal remedies cost you more than your claim. That being said there are people that provide capital to smaller publicly traded companies on the bulletin boards and pink sheets. They have opportunities do much better than the actual stock market investors in these companies, because you can negotiate contracts that let you cash out in their inevitable financing death spirals with very little risk to you. You can do these things as an individual or as a holding company, but the holding company will limit your liability to the amount your holding company invested, instead of your personal assets, in case your financing starts to incur liability with the company.", "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": "55cab6c8c047f51ea5f0380b2fb3c27b", "text": "\"Watch out for PO financing. A lot of those contracts have nasty terms like \"\"I agree that SCAM CAPITAL will be my sole source of credit for the next 2 years.\"\" that can get in the way of using bank debt or credit cards. They may even tell you otherwise to get you to sign, but they are the payday lenders of the business world. It can be great when it works, but there are a lot of shark men. While you can grow your company on po financing, understand that those companies exist to suck all the profit out of small, non-innovative companies, who needed a hand and their terms reflect that. If your business is that good maybe you can get someone to buy in instead? The second benefit to this is that if things go tits-up, then you don't have any personal guarantee. You will likely have to guarantee PO financing in most parts of the country.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c367ad374da420b8a8c5cb6d2191b80", "text": "Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93de284953fa5486669f0c77bcc3907", "text": "You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.", "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": "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": "52e8790f3d77d44502c61766e237945b", "text": "(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading. I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol). I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that). I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1b714e80a55045e5bde9b68b2342ed6", "text": "\"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of \"\"treasury stocks\"\", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "167e7ba61ac8b036dc0a477a9e81d0df", "text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ae38af3242ec23e15bb3730a65c228", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "035d6bea1dd42ac71c51671df2da59f4", "text": "\"Read the book, \"\"Slicing Pie: Fund Your Company Without Funds\"\". You can be given 5% over four years and in four years, they hire someone and give him twice as much as you, for working a month and not sacrificing his salary at all. Over the four years, the idiot who offered you the deal will waste investors money on obvious, stupid things because he doesn't know anything about how to build what he's asking you to build, causing the need for more investment and the dilution of your equity. I'm speaking from personal experience. Don't even do this. Start your own company if you're working for free, and tell the idiot who offered you 5% you'll offer him 2% for four years of him working for you for free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1709c5e813a70930b917308ebffc9a16", "text": "If it's a small one person business he will have to sign a personal guarantee no matter what he does with respect to incorporating. Not saying your idea isn't worth looking into but no bank will lend him money without a personal guarantee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13eba07f2fd4614e44c02219fb55b0d", "text": "Someone I know had an idea to open a savings account as an LLC or corporation to receive better interest rates on savings, and set up a system where anyone can pool money in and receive a larger cut through savings interest than with a personal account. Is this legal/feasible in any way?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d", "text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3ff48ce11d8999080a58c40b042bd043", "text": "\"An annuity is a contract. Its contents are \"\"a contractual obligation from the issuing company\"\". If you want to evaluate how your annuity is likely to fare, you're essentially asking whether or not its issuer will honor its contract. They're legally required to honor the contract, unless they go bankrupt. (Even if they do go bankrupt, you will be a creditor and may get a portion of the assets recovered by the bankruptcy process.) Generally, the issuer will take the proceeds and invest them in the stock market (or possibly in similar instruments - e.g. Berkshire-Hathaway bought a railroad and invests some money in it directly). They invest in these places because that's where the returns are. One of the reason that annuities may have a good rate on paper is that they may end up taking some of your principal, because many are structured as some form of survivor's insurance policy. Consider: If you're 65 years old and have some retirement savings, you'd like to be able to spend them without fear of them running out because you live longer than you expected (e.g. you survive to your 90s). So, you could invest in the stock market and hope for a 7% return indefinitely and then plan to spend the returns - but if those returns don't materialize for a few years because there's a big stock market crash, you're in big trouble! Or, you could buy an annuity contract which will pay you 7% a year (or more!) until you die. Then you're guaranteed the returns unless the issuer goes bankrupt. (Sure, you lose all your principal, but you're dead, so hey, maybe you don't care.) The insurance company essentially sells risk-tolerance. Other annuities aren't structured like this, and may be marketed towards non-retirees. They're usually not such a good deal. If they appear to be such a good deal, it may be an illusion. (Variable annuities in particular are hard to reason about without a good deal of knowledge about how the stock market behaves on a year-to-year basis: many of them have a maximum return as well as a minimum, and the stock market may pile up a lot of its returns into one year, so after a \"\"crash and recovery\"\" cycle you might end up behind the market instead of ahead.) Annuities are a form of safety. Safety can be very expensive. If you're investing your own money, consider whether you need that safety. You probably needn't worry quite so much about the issuer being crazy-fraudulent or Ponzi-esque: you should worry mostly about whether it looks better on paper than it is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df0fd975face50095720f6f1b6546ee8", "text": "\"This is really two questions about yield and contents. Content As others have noted, an annuity is a contractual obligation, not a portfolio contained within an investment product per se. The primary difference between whether an annuity is fixed or variable is what the issuer is guaranteeing and how much risk/reward you are sharing in. Generally speaking, the holdings of an issuer are influenced by the average \"\"duration\"\" of the payments. However, you can ascertain the assets that \"\"back\"\" that promise by looking at, for example, the holdings of a large insurance or securities firm. That is why issuers are generally rated as to their financial strength and ability to meet their obligations. A number of the market failures you mentioned were in part caused by the failure of these ratings to represent the true financial strength of the firm. Yield As to the second question of how they can offer a competitive rate, there are at least several reasons (I am assuming an immediate annuity) : 1) Return/Depletion of Principal The 7% you are being quoted is the percent of your principal that will be returned to you each year, not the rate of return being earned by the issuer. If you invest $100 in the market personally and get a 5% return, you have $105. However, the annuity's issuer is also returning part of your principal to you each year in your payment, as they don't return your principal when you eventually die. Because of this, they can offer you more each year than they really make in the market. What makes a Ponzi scheme different is that they are also paying out your principal (usually to others), but lie to you by telling you it's still in your account. :) 2) The Time Value of Money A promise to pay you $500 tomorrow costs less than $500 today A fixed annuity promises to pay you a certain amount of money each year. This can be represented as a rate of return calculated based on how much you have to pay to get that annual payment, but it is important to remember that the first payment will be worth substantially more in real purchasing power than the last payment you get. The longer you live, the less your fixed payment is worth in real terms due to inflation! In short, the rate of return has to be discounted for inflation, it is not a \"\"real\"\" rate of return. In other words, if you give me $500 today and I promise to pay you $100 for the next 5 years, I am making money not only because I can invest the money between now and then, but also because $100 will be worth less five years from now than it is today. With annuities, if you want your payment to rise in step with inflation, you have to pay more for that (a LOT more!). These are the two main reasons - here are a few smaller ones: 3) A very long Time Horizon If the stock market or another asset class is performing well/poorly, the issuer can often afford to wait much longer to buy or sell than an individual, and can take better advantage of historical highs and lows over the long term. 4) \"\"Big Boy\"\" investing A large, financially sound issuer can afford to take risks that an individual cannot, such as in very large or illiquid assets, such as a private company (a la Warren Buffet). 5) Efficiencies of scale Institutional investors have a number of legal advantages over individuals, which I won't discuss in detail here. However, they exist. Large issuers are also often in related business (insurance, mutual funds) such that they can deal in large volumes and form an internal clearinghouse (i.e. if I want to buy Facebook and you want to sell it, they can just move the stock around without doing any trading), with the result that their costs of trading are lower than those of an individual. Hope that helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd18134083143c2ebd4a25d61cbf4a02", "text": "For a variable annuity, you need to know the underlying investments and how your returns are credited to your account. For a fixed annuity, the issuer is responsible for the commitment to provide the promised rate to you. In a sense, how they invest isn't really your concern. You should be concerned about the overall health of the company, but in general, insurance companies tend to know their business when they stick to their strengths: writing insurance on groups and producing annuity contracts. I don't care for VAs or the fixed annuities you asked about, but I don't believe they resemble a ponzi scheme, either.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "359d3c194143a1f84f2c482a5df6ebdc", "text": "\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a860f3f8edddf97f00daf44f42cd1d3", "text": "\"Note - this is a complicated topic. I've read the rules multiple times and I'm still not sure I understand them perfectly. So please take this with a pinch of salt and read the rules for yourself. The time(s) at which a test is done against the LTA are known as a \"\"Benefit Crystallization Event\"\" (BCE). There are 13 of these (!) - they're numbered 1-9 with the addition of some extras numbered 5A-D. However, the most important ones for those with defined contribution pensions are: Broadly, the idea is that a BCE occurs when you start taking money out of your pension, and when you reach age 75. Each time one happens, the amount you are taking out (\"\"crystallizing\"\") gets compared against the LTA and a certain percentage of your LTA gets designated as being used. Crystallising doesn't necessarily mean you actually receive the money immediately, just that some of your money is switched into a mode where you can start receiving it in different ways. The rules are designed to avoid double counting, so broadly anything that was taken off your LTA won't be taken off a second time. The cumulative use of your LTA is tracked as a percentage rather than an absolute amount, to take account of any changes in the LTA between the different times you crystallise money. For example if you crystallise £100K when the LTA is £1mn, that's 10% of your LTA gone. If later on the LTA has risen to £1.1mn and you take out £110K, that's another 10%. Once you hit 100%, you start paying a LTA charge on any excess. The really simple path here is if you just get an annuity with your entire pot, before hitting age 75 (and you don't make any further pension contributions after). Then only BCE 4 applies: your pension pot, all of which is being used to buy the annuity, is compared with the LTA. After this point your entire pension pot is considered to be crystallized, so no more BCEs will apply - the tests at age 75 only apply if you still have money that you haven't taken out or used to buy an annuity. The annuity payments themselves will be subject to income tax at your normal rate at the time you receive them, i.e. 0%, 20%, 40% or 45% depending on how much other income you have. In reality most people would want to take 25% of their pot as a lump sum at the same time as buying an annuity, given that it's tax-free if you're under the LTA. At this point BCE 6 applies in addition to BCE 4, but again the overall effect of the test is pretty simple, look at the total pension pot (lump sum + cost of annuity), and if it's under the LTA you're fine. Again, at this point no more BCEs will apply as all the money is considered to have been fully distributed. If you only use part of the money for an annuity/lump sum, then only that part of the money is compared against the LTA, and the rest stays in your pension and will be compared later. The 25% limit for a tax-free lump sum applies to the total you are taking out at that point: if you have £200K and are taking out £100K, you can take out £25K as a tax-free lump sum and use £75K for the annuity. The other £100K stays in your pension. Many people see annuity rates as very low and will want to take on more risk (and reward) by using \"\"Drawdown\"\" for at least part of their pension. Essentially, you can designate part of your pension for drawdown, and at that point BCE 1 applies to the money you designate. Once designated, you can start drawing the money out as income, which will be taxed at your normal income tax rate at the time you receive it. Again, you can take 25% as a lump sum at this point which will be subject to BCE 6. There's also an alternative route where you put everything into \"\"flexi-access drawdown\"\" without taking any lump sum immediately, and then as you actually withdraw income, 25% is tax-free and the rest is taxed as income. The overall effect is the same, but it gives you more control over when you get the tax-free bit. However, because with drawdown you can actually leave the money in your pension and growing tax-free, there's a further test against the LTA at age 75 under BCE 5A. To avoid double-counting (\"\"prevention of overlap\"\"), the amount left in the drawdown fund at that point is reduced by whatever was previously tested against BCE 1. So if you put £150K into drawdown initially, and it's grown to £200K by age 75, then another £50K will crystallise under BCE 5A. I think that if you put £150K into drawdown initially and it grows by £50K, but you take that out as income so that only £150K (or less) remains at age 75, then the amount crystallising under BCE 5A is nil. Also, when money is in drawdown, you can choose to use it to buy an annuity. BCE 4 is applied at this point (if before age 75), but as with BCE 5A, this is reduced by anything that was previously crystallised under BCE 1. If you only use some of it to buy an annuity, the reduction is pro-rataed, e.g. if you started out with £150K moved into drawdown, and later it has grown to £200K and you use £100K to buy an annuity, then the reduction is £75K so £25K is considered to have crystallised under BCE 4. Once you reach age 75, as well as any money that's still in drawdown, anything you haven't yet crystallised at all gets tested against the LTA under BCE 5B. Broadly, once you go over the LTA, the charges are simple: There's never any explanation given for these two rates, but I think it's all based on trying to at least cancel out the benefit you got from using your pension, on the assumption that: So with the 25% charge + 20% income tax, if you take out £100, you'll end up with £75 gross income, so £60 net income - just the same as if you'd originally paid 40% tax. (This ignores the effect of investment growth, but if you would have saved the £60 in an ISA, the end result is the same: if you had growth of say 50% over the time the money was in your pension, it'll be the same effect if you had £100 growing to £150 and now received 60% of it, or if you had £60 growing to £90 untaxed in an ISA.) The 55% lump sum charge is in case you are paying 40% tax when you take it out, to make sure that it's not a more attractive option than the 25%+income tax: if you have £100, either you get £45 tax free via a lump sum, or you get £75 gross and hence £45 net. I haven't covered lots of cases here: defined benefit pensions. Roughly, when you start receiving the pension, 20x the initial income from the pension is deemed to crystallise under BCE 2 and any lump sum you receive crystallises under BCE 6. In the former case, you could end up having to pay the LTA charge with money you haven't actually got yet, and you can ask the pension administrator to instead reduce your pension to pay it. However, there are lots of special cases for defined benefit pensions, mostly for historical reasons, so you should make sure you check with your pension administrator about this. if you die before age 75, at which point the LTA test is applied via either BCE 5C/5D, or BCE 7. After paying the LTA charge if any, your dependents or whoever else you leave it to gets the remainder tax-free. transferring overseas (BCE 8). \"\"scheme pensions\"\" under BCE 2 and BCE 3 (I think these are relatively uncommon) some corner cases covered by regulations (BCE 9)\"", "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": "fceae85b48ddff092e9d08092eecabbd", "text": "You need to see that prospectus. I just met with some potential new clients today that wanted me to take a look at their investments. Turns out they had two separate annuities. One was a variable annuity with Allianz. The other was with some company named Midland Insurance (can't remember the whole name). Turns out the Allianz VA has a 10 year surrender contract and the Midland has a 14 year contract. 14 years!!! They are currently in year 7 and if they need any money (I'm hoping they at least have a 10% free withdrawal) they will pay 6% surrender on the Allianz and a 15% surrender on the other. Ironically enough, they guy who sold this to them is now in jail. No joke.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c175f3104fa1622c371c24f1617c3804", "text": "\"I don't know how annuities work it's all smoke and mirrors to me. This is a huge red flag to me. I would ask the agent what the penalty is to cancel this contract, and see ho much you can get back. If done right, you should be able to transfer these funds to an IRA or other pretax account. To be clear, I'd make a similar remark if you said your were in a S&P ETF or any investment you don't understand. \"\"Appropriate investment\"\" means little if the investor has no understanding of what they are buying. Update in repose to comments -\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "473bea867c1ec882bb7dd4adaa25a42a", "text": "Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa606018412c90bd9630de00ff8409e0", "text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85000bed497e6334aa780dbb0d8bbd83", "text": "Annuities, like life insurance, are sold rather than bought. Once upon a time, IRAs inherited from a non-spouse required the beneficiary to (a) take all the money out within 5 years, or (b) choose to receive the value of the IRA at the time of the IRA owner's death in equal installments over the expected lifetime of the beneficiary. If the latter option was chosen, the IRA custodian issued the fixed-term annuity in return for the IRA assets. If the IRA was invested in (say) 15000 shares of IBM stock, that stock would then belong to the IRA custodian who was obligated to pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the next 23 years (say). There was no investment any more that could be transferred to another broker, or be sold and the proceeds invested in Facebook stock (say). Nor was the custodian under any obligation to do anything except pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the 23 years. Financial planners loved to get at this money under the old IRA rules by suggesting that if all the IRA money were taken out and invested in stocks or mutual funds through their company, the company would pay a guaranteed $y per year, would pay more than $y in each year that the investments did well, would continue payment until the beneficiary died (or till the death of the beneficiary or beneficiary's spouse - whoever died later), and would return the entire sum invested (less payouts already made, of course) in case of premature death. $y typically would be a little larger than $x too, because it factored in some earnings of the investment over the years. So what was not to like? Of course, the commissions earned by the planner and the lousy mutual funds and the huge surrender charges were always glossed over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c792b0ad91138ee36099aef622b3d59c", "text": "\"The answer to almost all questions of this type is to draw a diagram. This will show you in graphical fashion the timing of all payments out and payments received. Then, if all these payments are brought to the same date and set equal to each other (using the desired rate of return), the equation to be solved is generated. In this case, taking the start of the bond's life as the point of reference, the various amounts are: Pay out = X Received = a series of 15 annual payments of $70, the first coming in 1 year. This can be brought to the reference date using the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity. PLUS Received = A single payment of $1000, made 15 years in the future. This can be brought to the reference date using the simple interest formula. Set the pay-out equal to the present value of the payments received and solve for X I am unaware of the difference, if any, between \"\"current rate\"\" and \"\"rate to maturity\"\" Finding the rate for such a series of payments would start out the same as above, but solving the resulting equation for the interest rate would be a daunting task...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c", "text": "E&amp;P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f38bd0a46bf85a3c29ba74acc1ff4e3", "text": "\"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. \"\"Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back\"\" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc", "text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9170569a02966ba5ad568f1aff9d076f", "text": "Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361", "title": "" }, { "docid": "931fb69cc32b371354cc60e4f4f5229f", "text": "Get an advanced degree. This should increase your earning power. Also learn how to use a computer, this should also tend to increase your earning power.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8ad670321acaed5751ea3172021336", "text": "I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8611f8cbadc0cf3ddc4051b954763ed2", "text": "How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company? At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first. What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C. You own enough stock to have 1% of A. It splits. Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C. How much? Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C. What if all the profitable projects are in B? Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C. But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A. Completely fair. In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A. And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else. Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market. A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8d3cb1fb84201278601a6f61c5feedfc", "text": "What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements.", "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": "1eebb6fe1711a3950d7b67ffa1a5a0a6", "text": "Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3be9d78a26a139925ceadf3aa625988", "text": "The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends. In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9c2c0c7b002d89409c6869f93afb653", "text": "\"It's called \"\"dilution\"\". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0a4756367c596b3fda74b485d5ea1a0", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"", "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": "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": "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": "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": "cfea65956e6385a78c8890560327b685", "text": "/ in relative to the Tesla's performance, and current inflation. They can split and reverse split at anytime the board decides without any regard to inflation or performance. OP points to Tesla at 350- he doesn't point to PE. It makes no differences what the price of one share is. If they split 10 for 1 it would be 35- but what difference does that make- the PE remains the same. OP does not understand value- only price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeb17bf4b73d0f13117216075ec7f99", "text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"", "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": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b", "text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69997fc43a30d7d136f11e2c6cccf3ba", "text": "Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0ef34139733e51f293d8045477a1b831", "text": "Your back of the envelope calculation shows an income of about 5.5% per year, which is much better than a bank. The risk of course is that in a few years when you want to sell the stock, the price may not be at the level you want. The question is what are you giving up with this plan. You have 80K in cash, will cutting it to 30K in cash make it harder for your business to survive? If your income from the business starts slowly, having that 50K in cash may be better. Selling the stock when the business is desperate for money may lock in losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff50e7e67484be10ab8fad0cdd25241d", "text": "I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient). I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility. To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff6a6b8b9211bde03bed2c76076b87f7", "text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91c50e774803034969f7d5fb7a32d253", "text": "\"It is true, as farnsy noted, that you generally do not know when stock that you're holding has been loaned by your broker to someone for a short sale, that you generally consent to that when you sign up somewhere in the small print, and that the person who borrows has to make repay and dividends. The broker is on the hook to make sure that your stock is available for you to sell when you want, so there's limited risk there. There are some risks to having your stock loaned though. The main one is that you don't actually get the dividend. Formally, you get a \"\"Substitute Payment in Lieu of Dividends.\"\" The payment in lieu will be taxed differently. Whereas qualified dividends get reported on Form 1099-DIV and get special tax treatment, substitute payments get reported on Form 1099-MISC. (Box 8 is just for this purpose.) Substitute payments get taxed as regular income, not at the preferred rate for dividends. The broker may or may not give you additional money beyond the dividend to compensate you for the extra tax. Whether or not this tax difference matters, depends on how much you're getting in dividends, your tax bracket, and to some extent your general perspective. If you want to vote your shares and exercise your ownership rights, then there are also some risks. The company only issues ballots for the number of shares issued by them. On the broker's books, however, the short sale may result in more long positions than there are total shares of stock. Financially the \"\"extra\"\" longs are offset by shorts, but for voting this does not balance. (I'm unclear how this is resolved - I've read that the the brokers essentially depend on shareholder apathy, but I'd guess there's more to it than that.) If you want to prevent your broker from loaning out your shares, you have some options:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25a57008feacf3d30214aaf84392307f", "text": "It is worth noting first that interest and short-term dividends/capital gains are all taxed at the same rate. So all the investments below I mention (even savings accounts) will be taxed at the same rate. Also, even short-term capital losses can often be harvested to reduce your tax rate in many countries. While it is worth paying attention to the taxes when investing in the short term the more important factor is how much risk that you can take or want to take with the money. Most equity portfolios like the S&P index give a much higher risk that there will be much less in the account when you need to buy. You generally have a higher expected return with equity but as you mention that return is very random over such a short period. Over such a short variable period many people will invest in short term bond-index funds or just keep the fund in a high-yielding savings account. With the savings account your money is guaranteed. Short term bond funds will have generally higher yields but a small chance you may lose money in the short term. Some people can trade short-term bond indices for free with their broker but if you can't be sure to include the trading costs when thinking about which investment to use as with how low yields are currently the fees may eat up any advantage you gain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8", "text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ea51f3ed86b6d3207389c9309adb06", "text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cabb237fffd7db5cb951c9fa74e91e1c", "text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21e155150e3ba5ad7e9cb5751b147ff3", "text": "As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16", "text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"", "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": "58b4d3e97ef5bd7787febc8e5c69e50a", "text": "Let us consider the risks in the investment opportunities: Now, what are the returns in each of the investment: What are the alternatives to these investments, then?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3e7dd56fbd72e7484314c90545e4f50", "text": "\"In financial markets, the gains you can expect to make (whether in the form of dividends or capital gains) correspond to the risks you are bearing. There are a variety of REITs but you can expect to make only as much money in them as you bear risk (meaning you can also lose a lot of money in the ones that earn a lot). In that sense they are just like other financial assets like stocks. If you are generically trying to increase your wealth by bearing risk, you can get a better risk/reward ratio in a fully diversified portfolio including stocks and bonds as well and REITs. \"\"Passive income\"\" means making money by bearing risk. REITs alone, without diversifying into other financial assets, do a poor job of generating income for the amount of risk you bear. So why are REITs not very comparable to buying a house and renting it out? Because in the latter case you are being paid not only for bearing the risk of the house depreciating but also you are being compensated for the work you do as a landlord. Moreover, because the house doesn't trade in a liquid market like REITs do, it is possible to actually get a good deal, as opposed to the fair deal you will get on a REIT. TL;DR: The \"\"passive income\"\" generated by REIT investment is more similar to generic equity/bond investment than it is to an investment in a physical home that you rent out. If what you want is to make money without doing anything besides bear risk, you should invest in a fully diversified portfolio of financial assets (equity and bonds being the primary constituents but REITs potentially being a part as well).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d15f05e42de66d2aafc77d0b26a0234", "text": "\"To short: Of course, you may always buy some index correlated ETF that eliminates the above. They use stock futures on the index, and you simply buy the \"\"shorting ETF\"\" in your non-margin account. However, they are surprisingly high cost, and despite the intended correlation, have significant drag. It's a much safer way to short the market (you have great choice in which market ETF) and eliminates the single stock risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f43bf7e07ab2c5813cfe16dd48110f7", "text": "There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e8b5dd4f124ff76f3380c6fd54f32", "text": "In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends. It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "75b58792cfda66919ddd3a60a4a8607c", "text": "\"I have personally invested $5,000 in a YieldStreet offering (a loan being used by a company looking to expand a ridesharing fleet), and would certainly recommend taking a closer look if they fit your investment goals and risk profile. (Here's a more detailed review I wrote on my website.) YieldStreet is among a growing crop of companies launched as a result of legislative and regulatory changes that began with the JOBS Act in 2012 (that's a summary from my website that I wrote after my own efforts to parse the new rules) but didn't fully go into effect until last year. Most of them are in Real Estate or Angel/Venture, so YieldStreet is clearly looking to carve out a niche by assembling a rather diverse collection of offerings (including Real Estate, but also other many other categories). Unlike angel/venture platforms (and more like the Real Estate platforms), YieldStreet only offers secured (asset-backed) investments, so in theory there's less risk of loss of principal (though in practice, these platforms haven't been through a serious stress test). So far I've stuck with relatively short-term investments on the debt crowdfunding platforms (including YieldStreet), and at least for the one I chose, it includes monthly payments of both principal and interest, so you're \"\"taking money off the table\"\" right away (though presumably then are faced with how to redeploy, which is another matter altogether!) My advice is to start small while you acclimate to the various platforms and investment options. I know I was overwhelmed when I first decided to try one out, and the way I got over that was to decide on the maximum I was willing to lose entirely, and then focus on finding the first opportunity that looked reasonable and would maximize what I could learn (in my case it was a $1,000 in a fix-and-flip loan deal via PeerStreet).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3a330923839aeeaff4776452ccea1f4", "text": "\"10 to 20% return on investment annually. \"\"When I hear that an investment has a 10%+ return on it I avoid it because...\"\". In my opinion, and based on my experience, 10% annually is not an exageration. I start to ask questions only if one talks about return of 30% annually or more. These kind of returns are possible, but very rare. What sort of things do we need to look out for with alternative investment? First the quality of the website and the documentation provided. Then the resume of the founders. Who are those guys? I check their LinkedIn profile. If they have none, I am out. A LinkedIn profile is a minimum if you manage an investment company. I also look for diversification and this is the case with Yieldstreet. How do we assess the risks associated with alternative investments? I would never put more than 10% of my capital in any investment, alternative ones included. I also try to find financial information on the promoter itself. In Yieldstreet case check the legal advisor. I remember an international fraud case I analyse. The promoter I investigated had seven small trust involved: in British Virgin Islands, in Panama, in Holland, in Portugal, in the United States and Canada plus a banking account in Switzerland and the biggest shareholding company in the Isle of Man. No need to talk about what happened after. The investors were all non residents in the juridictions involved and no legal recourse were possible. They lost everything. These promoters regularly change juridictions to avoid detection. As far as Yieldstreet is concerned, what I read and checked seems interesting. Thanks for your question. I will check it out myself more. I am also a very cautious investor. To evaluate alternative investments is difficult , but no need to be afraid or to avoid them. We are accredited investors after all.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "592918b1cf6d66a9a86a98c63e2ebbf6", "text": "\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \"\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\"\" \"\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\"\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \"\"the variance is 10\"\" or \"\"the beta is 1.5\"\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \"\"chance of success\"\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7804941c192b1710b6addbf89aea5a5", "text": "Executive Summary: your elevator speech Overview: What it is in detail Disclosure: what can go wrong, in detail subchapter one: internal threats/weakness subchapter two external subchapter three: risk management Proforma financials: heres how much money I need and here's what the books look like at the end of each of five years. Revenue Forecast: how the majic unfolds in units, price, geographically, and any other dimension Corporate/capital structure: how they can get in an out of this investment and other C-suite operating tidbits Execution plan: you receive the money, then what?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbefe50d05a17ab5e03bbdd33a74cb84", "text": "\"**Modern portfolio theory** Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return. Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. *** **Option (finance)** In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) \"\"exercises\"\" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589f78823da1fd3124f90f0df146d4b8", "text": "No, fractional reserve banking isn't a scam. A simple exercise: replace dollars with time. You're trading some time now for time in the future, plus a bit of extra time. This is only a problem if you promise your entire life away, which we've helpfully outlawed. Once you realize that wealth is the result of human labor, and that money is simply a unit of account for it, it becomes far easier to see how simplistic models don't match reality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036", "text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane &amp; Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "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": "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": "200210b493be3700afa3184f92fdd8aa", "text": "Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change", "title": "" }, { "docid": "725951659c06b70d8fe02aca12320d51", "text": "I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bff3fef09ee5bd2fb14dbdb7c3e95eb9", "text": "To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals. One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates. An example of a play on 'smart money': S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500. Changes to the list trigger 'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0418d8ab15cfc19f66cea6800e42c5", "text": "I don't completely have GIPS down, risk management still gets me on some questions, and alternative investments is fucking me a bit. Any of the IPS questions will be iffy because I'm not good at paying attention to detail in the prompts. On the other hand, I memorized the micro and global attribution formulas so I'm hoping for a lot of questions on that shit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a452388558c5efe9cfa6b7e1088836e9", "text": "\"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac", "text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0044b61fb390a15d42caa49119414285", "text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "66786513c4ca328a928805d2de4d7409", "text": "when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ecaf5b8798b632c7f3dde298577f22c5", "text": "\"In this environment, I don't think that it is advisable to buy a broad emerging market fund. Why? \"\"Emerging market\"\" is too broad... Look at the top 10 holdings of the fund... You're exposed to Russia & Brazil (oil driven), Chinese and Latin American banks and Asian electronics manufacturing. Those are sectors that don't correlate, in economies that are unstable -- a recipie for trouble unless you think that the global economy is heading way up. I would recommend focusing on the sectors that you are interested in (ie oil, electronics, etc) via a low cost vehicle like an index ETF or invest using a actively managed emerging markets fund with a strategy that you understand. Don't invest a dime unless you understand what you are getting into. An index fund is just sorting companies by market cap. But... What does market cap mean when you are buying a Chinese bank?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ba3ae6663acc704b2844e46809c81b", "text": "U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de687615733f0535c8b3efca960a7e78", "text": "\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \"\"seize\"\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f321b5f5dcf5df983195cc9e9609e344", "text": "Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcde0f9527d86dec009f5a62cee3b5d7", "text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8", "text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe4513005bf90450c2695629c0f31560", "text": "Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.", "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": "8b97d4bf72e0dd05ddcdc5bb3403b6ae", "text": "There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62805ccdb9c6fbf48715ce3709ffaa39", "text": "I think the main question is whether the 1.5% quarterly fee is so bad that it warrants losing $60,000 immediately. Suppose they pull it out now, so they have 220000 - 60000 = $160,000. They then invest this in a low-cost index fund, earning say 6% per year on average over 10 years. The result: Alternatively, they leave the $220,000 in but tell the manager to invest it in the same index fund now. They earn nothing because the manager's rapacious fees eat up all the gains (4*1.5% = 6%, not perfectly accurate due to compounding but close enough since 6% is only an estimate anyway). The result: the same $220,000 they started with. This back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will actually come out ahead by biting the bullet and taking the money out. However, I would definitely not advise them to take this major step just based on this simple calculation. Many other factors are relevant (e.g., taxes when selling the existing investment to buy the index fund, how much of their savings was this $300,000). Also, I don't know anything about how investment works in Hong Kong, so there could be some wrinkles that modify or invalidate this simple calculation. But it is a starting point. Based on what you say here, I'd say they should take the earliest opportunity to tell everyone they know never to work with this investment manager. I would go so far as to say they should look at his credentials (e.g., see what kind of financial advisor certification he has, if any), look up the ethical standards of their issuers, and consider filing a complaint. This is not because of the performance of the investments -- losing 25% of your money due to market swings is a risk you have to accept -- but because of the exorbitant fees. Unless Hong Kong has got some crazy kind of investment management market, charging 1.5% quarterly is highway robbery; charging a 25%+ for withdrawal is pillage. Personally, I would seriously consider withdrawing the money even if the manager's investments had outperformed the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d5a592bd8a7bc03d14a5595c15a73ad", "text": "\"Diversify between high risk, medium risks investments as well as \"\"safe\"\" ones like bonds authored directly from the EU. All in all you re much better off than lending money to the bank through a savings account for no more than 1% in interest rate(given the current NL situation). Congratulations on becoming financially independent(your investments covering your living expenses) in as low as 9-15years from now.\"", "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": "2aebc3236bf05398c43612ad19dc8249", "text": "Well first off, I would advice you to do this research yourself. You should not base your selection off someone's opinion such as mines. With that being said, these are some factors I suggest you consider and research before talking to an offshore bank account: Now, when opening an offshore account most offshore banks do not require you to be present at all. You can open an account simply by calling them or filling out their application online. However, be prepared to provide them with some information to verify who you are and the nature of your business such as a notarized passport along with other various forms of information that they may require. Just think of what your local bank requires is generally what they will ask as well. Here is a compiled list of offshore bank accounts to consider: These banks overall have a range between $0 - $1 million (domestic currency) minimum deposits. Most of them ranging from $1000-$5000. It all depends on the type of account, the nature of the account, and the business associated with the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f", "text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7872e2a2885e23482027b15df8710aa", "text": "Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "518b52c68869a5db8e185a64c74529c7", "text": "\"The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly \"\"private equity\"\" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of \"\"leveraging up\"\" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c12ad1c75d8f5457aea6526a873e167c", "text": "It's not all roses, as I understand it, one effect of a tax inversion move is that existing stockholders will get hit with capital gains tax on the stock they hold as part of the conversion process. Edit: going a bit further, often officers of the corporation are insulated from this tax as they have agreements that the company will pay their tax in the event of such a conversion. Seems like a potential for conflict of interest of officers vs shareholders to me. It's unknown if this is the case with BK execs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9c2c0c7b002d89409c6869f93afb653", "text": "\"It's called \"\"dilution\"\". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3efe3ae43a81233cc493fe7893ce776", "text": "My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.", "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": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5", "text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "011e163d03beae1abd1d605e6ac2d3dd", "text": "\"As discussed in the comments, the best approach is to make a loan to the company. Make sure you document the terms of the loan including when it is repayable and any interest due. If you want to be able to retrieve the money for personal purposes then just note that it's repayable on demand. In practice if you just transfer money to the company when needed it would probably be treated as an interest-free loan, but even if that's what you want, it's best to document this to avoid any ambiguity. The main alternative would be for the company to issue shares that you would own and \"\"pay up\"\" the capital on. This would get the same money into the company, but it'd be harder to get it out again later. You may want to charge interest on the loan. The rate would have to be a reasonable one but you still have a fair amount of latitude in deciding it. Any interest would reduce the profits of the company and be subject to income tax when you receive it. Those profits would otherwise be subject to corporation tax. and then if paid out as a dividend might be subject to some income tax. You'd need to compare the tax rates for the two routes to see which was better; note that you pay less income tax than normal on dividends to account for the fact that corporation tax was already charged.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954c15a2906ae58f160e91c32a0a1c96", "text": "I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends &amp; other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.", "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": "f068810e0366ba6a9244f41e7f374873", "text": "If a company doesn't take out loans to buy back the shares, is it still a bad move? I don't necessarily see the problem with companies retiring shares. If the shares of say Apple have a P/E ratio of 10 and the price to book value max of 1. Wouldn't it be a smart move by the company and the share holders assuming the projected net revenue will hold for at least ten years if not increase. I guess I don't know the true practice of buying back shares but at its core (could be more corrupt), I just don't see it as inherently bad.", "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": "f3be9d78a26a139925ceadf3aa625988", "text": "The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends. In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "715832a0ce5dd6bfc23d850927768807", "text": "One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d91739afcb1f6db012efe56d20c0d6a", "text": "I wouldn't use it to take leverage unless you don't mind loosing your entire investment (this is a possibility as shares are already quite volatile). However, you don't have to take leverage and still trade CFDs. Benefits of doing so: Disadvantages:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4492a7c887b3e31a90e888103dd0f897", "text": "All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6812554ac6a6fe2c714ab6e6f19a657c", "text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ec9961d911a037f952f77576264d16a0", "text": "The idea you present is not uncommon, many have tried it before. It would be a great step to find landlords in your area and talk to them about lessons learned. It might cost you a lunch or cup of coffee but it could be the best investment you make. rent it out for a small profit (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) Given the median price of a home is ~220K, and you are investing 44K, you are looking to make between a 6 and 11% profit. I would not classify this as small in the current interest rate environment. One aspect you are overlooking is risk. What happens if a furnace breaks, or someone does not pay their rent? While some may advocate borrowing money to buy rental real estate all reasonable advisers advocate having sufficient reserves to cover emergencies. Keep in mind that 33% of homes in the US do not have a mortgage and some investment experts advocate only buying rentals with cash. Currently owning rental property is a really good deal for the owners for a variety of reasons. Markets are cyclical and I bet things will not be as attractive in 10 years or so. Keep in mind you are borrowing ~220K or whatever you intend to pay. You are on the hook for that. A bank may not lend you the money, and even if they do a couple of false steps could leave you in a deep hole. That should at least give you pause. All that being said, I really like your gumption. I like your desire and perhaps you should set a goal of owning your first rental property for 5 years from now. In the mean time study and become educated in the business. Perhaps get your real estate license. Perhaps go to work for a property management company to learn the ins and outs of their business. I would do this even if I had a better paying full time job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2a5a0971e352bc083b87a6b8757baa0", "text": "A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa680b0531e0827ad5254ef83fd98ec9", "text": "This is a reasonable idea and many people have done it. But there are some risks that you need to mitigate. This is a viable business model, but it is a business and you need to treat it as such and expect to work quite hard at it.", "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": "7a6ed41b4aea8dab6861258575a0034a", "text": "\"This is a well worn path and not a bad idea. There are quite a few pitfalls but there are a lot of resources to learn for other people's mistakes. Having a plan and doing your research should help you avoid most of them. Here is some general advice to help get you started on the right foot. Know the market you are investing in. The city should have more than one major employer. The population should be rising and hopefully there are other positive economic indicators. Check the city's and state's chamber of commerce for useful information. You do not want to be stuck holding a bunch of upside down property in Detroit. Accurately calculate expenses. Set aside money for repairs. budget 5% of the rent or 100 a month for repairs if no repairs happen that money goes into the repair fund for the future. Set aside money for capital expenditures if the roof has a 10 years of life left in 10 years you better be ready to replace it same with any major appliances. Your area should have a baseline vacancy rate 5-8% in my area. That says out of a year your property will be vacant for around 6% of the year or 21 days for turnover. You should build that cushion into the budget as well setting aside a portion of the rent to cover that lean period. Some property management will offer \"\"eviction insurance\"\" which is basically them enforcing that savings. Financing maybe difficult a lot of banks like to see 25% down payments on investments. You will also face higher interest rates for investment properties. Banks generally also like to see enough money to cover 6 months worth of expenses in your account for all property. Some banks will not give financing for investment property to someone without 1-2 years of landlord experience. All in all finding money will be hard when you gets started and your terms may be less than ideal. (hopefully make around 3 - 5k a year in profit) If that includes loan pay-down and is not just cash-flow you are probably in the right ballpark. I can find $100-$200 dollars cash-flow a month on single family home in my area. Once loan pay-down is included your numbers are close. It sounds like you have a good attitude and a good plan. A book that I really enjoyed and I think may be useful is \"\"Start Small, Profit Big in Real Estate\"\" by Jay DeCima. I think of it as required reading for do-it-yourself real estate investors. Good luck and happy investing\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0e307477870f8f3bb1dbe9eead58366", "text": "\"This can be done, and there have been many good suggestions on things to do and watch out for. But to my shock I don't see anyone offering any words of caution about property managers! Whatever you do, don't assume they have your best interests at heart. Do not assume that \"\"no news is good news\"\" and that if you aren't hearing of problems and are just collecting rent checks, everything must be fine. You can easily end up with tenants you would never have allowed yourself, or tenants with pets that you would not have allowed, etc. Especially if the manager doesn't want you to have a vacancy and potentially lose you as a client, they may very well lower their standards just to get the place occupied. And a year or two or three later, you may find yourself looking at a very large repair bill and wonder how on earth it could have happened when you supposedly had someone looking out for your property! There are quality, ethical property managers out there. They are not all bad to be certain. But whatever you do, check up on them. And with multiple properties - especially if in multiple areas/states etc. - this can be nearly a full time job in itself. As the saying goes, \"\"Trust, but verify\"\". I have never found this to apply more than with rental properties and property management. Don't leave anything significant to them 100%. You can't even assume that a rule like \"\"all expenses over $50 must be cleared by me first\"\", as that can simply mean that they don't bother to come to you for certain kinds of repairs that would cost more than that, or that they just get them \"\"taken care of\"\" by their own person (done poorly, illegally, etc.) and never tell you. Never trust their choice of tenants blindly. Visit the place yourself at least every few months - a quick driveby at a minimum or better if you can, arrange a reason to walk through the house personally. Check the back yard, never assume that the front yard is indicative of anything else. Never assume that a \"\"no pets\"\" rule will be followed, or that tenants wouldn't lie to the management about having pets. Never assume that the tenants won't move additional people into the property as well. Always expect a bare minimum of 1 month vacancy every year, and an additional minimum of 1 month's rental revenue in unexpected maintenance/repairs every year. This is at a minimum! You might do much better than this, and have a high quality tenant in place for years who costs next to nothing in extra maintenance. But do not count on it. Rental real estate investing looks so simple on paper, where it's just numbers. But reality has a very rude habit of surprising you when you least expect it. After all, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338", "text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879062f352451bc4ee852520a91ffa83", "text": "\"BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say \"\"If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end\"\" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest. I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same \"\"return\"\" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)....\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cdc8ee4b63ae9ac426fd4dad8942a239", "text": "Huh, well it's working for me. I've got 3 properties and am a little over 25% of my goal to never work again. How would you suggest one get rich? I assume you have a better plan than he does?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc46add7bfe3ee10ee4eb7f944b698a", "text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a41c6e82cb828cc6beeb5ccba6f277", "text": "\"With a healthy income its quite possible to contribute too much into 401Ks/IRAs. For example, if your retired today and had 3 million or so, how much more would you need? Would an extra million materially change your life? Would it make you happier if you invested that extra in some rental properties or perhaps a business like a sandwich or ice cream shop where you have more direct control? This kind of discussion is possible as you indicate that you have taken care of your life financially. It seems at odds with the negative press describing the woefully condition of the standard person's finances. These articles ignore a very simple fact: its because of bad behavior. You, on the contrary, have behaved well and are in the process of reaping rewards. This is where I feel your \"\"mental gymnastics\"\" originates. Looking to engage in the rental market is no different then buying a franchise. You are opening a business of your own. You'll have to educate yourself and are likely to make a few mistakes that will cause you to write checks to solve. Your goal is to minimize those mistakes. After all, what do you know about the rental home business? I am guessing not much. Educate yourself. Read and spend some money on taking knowledgeable people out for coffee. In the end you should understand that although a poor decision may cost you money you cannot really make a bad decision. Lets say you do buy a rental property, things go south, you sell for a loss, etc.... In the end the \"\"butchers bill\"\" is 50K or so. Will that materially change your life? Probably not. The worst case is perhaps you have to work a year or two beyond the anticipated retirement age to make up that money. No big deal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f12b3ad22e5472415d13b933fe63d3f", "text": "I would second the advice to not do this. Real estate ownership is complex to begin with, involving a constant stream of maintenance, financing, and other decisions. It is difficult enough to do for a single individual or a family as a unit (a couple), but at least spouses are forced to compromise. Friends are not, and you can end up with long-running conflicts and impasses. Financial transactions of any kind impose tensions on relationships, and friendships are no exception. If you want your friendship to survivie, do not sacrifice it to the financial arrangement which seems like a good idea at the moment. My advice would be to steer clear, no matter how attractive on the surface the deal might look. Focus on your own individual finances and use discipline and patience to save the amount needed for acquiring a separate investment property. But it will be 100% yours, and will save tons of headache. Since you are still considering this deal, it's a great time to politely change your mind and walk away - believe me, a few minutes of inconvenience will save you years of frustration. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f1d730eaf1d003c5d7ae2525da05a6c", "text": "No. This logic is dangerous. The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house. With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea. By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median? Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes. Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog. Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty. If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeab1aacfb9f67c350b65bcfffaba13", "text": "To invest relatively small amounts in the real estate market, you could buy shares in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), a type of mutual fund. Admittedly that's a very different proposition from trying to become a landlord; lower risk but lower return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6568d63e1e16bc385ef85b971d630528", "text": "\"You mention: High rent places are usually also high property value places. Given the tax incentives, it seems like a good long term idea to grab a house, so if we assume you have the option of working and buying a house in a high CoL or a low CoL city, I think you'd prefer the high cost. Because essentially, after 30 years, you'd have a million dollar house vs a quarter million dollar house. You've captured three quarters of a million dollars in rent, given my napkin math hypothetical. I think you're forgetting about some of the associated costs with \"\"owning\"\" a home, including:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990df5d54f35fc76dac95ac6c32c752c", "text": "\"Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's \"\"that ridiculous castle\"\" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes. And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default.\"", "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": "366e4f092dbfd5bf75a34ea777a4fe2b", "text": "Here would be the big two you don't mention: Time - How much of your own time are you prepared to commit to this? Are you going to find tenants, handle calls if something breaks down, and other possible miscellaneous issues that may arise with the property? Are you prepared to spend money on possible renovations and other maintenance on the property that may occur from time to time? Financial costs - You don't mention anything about insurance or taxes, as in property taxes since most municipalities need funds that would come from the owner of the home, that would be a couple of other costs to note in having real estate holdings as if something big happens are you expecting a government bailout automatically? If you chose to use a property management company for dealing with most issues then be aware of how much cash flow could be impacted here. Are you prepared to have an account to properly do the books for your company that will hold the property or would you be doing this as an individual without any corporate structure? Do you have lease agreements printed up or would you need someone to provide these for you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f20fdb3b3ea6780e82c610fcb1950bd8", "text": "Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now. Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role. There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3651bb2af6000cf54640c7bce08638f", "text": "Have you considered investing in real estate? Property is cheap now and you have enough money for several properties. The income from tenants could be very helpful. If you find it's not for you, you can also sell your property and recover your initial investment, assuming house prices go up in the next few years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c14b4881f89e813dcec5a551b30856b2", "text": "2 very viable options. Real Estate is cheap now and if you hold a few properties for the long term the price should rise. You can use them as rental properties to supplement your income. In addition agriculture is also very viable. How else you gunna feed 7 billion? Might as well cash in on that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "266fde9704582a3f139f5690f61fda24", "text": "What does your cash flow look like? If you can comfortably afford to pay the extra cost and ride out the mortgage, it can be a nice investment. Better if you can manage the property yourself and are somewhat handy. Realize you should be able to raise rents over time so that it is cash flow even eventually. If cash flow is tight, sell it and re-fi your current place", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43edc39c145d3f08bc65729cd44c8faa", "text": "Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d664fbfb68e97ecc4ec98ba26dbb090", "text": "\"Robert Kiyosaki's is basically a get-rich quick author. But to answer your question: It is a sales pitch in disguise. See Marketplace's report on a Kiyosaki seminar, which reveals that the free work shop is a sales pitch for a 3-day work shop which costs several hundred dollars. And the 3-day workshop is a sales pitch for \"\"advanced\"\" training which can cost as much as $45,000 (presumably in Canadian dollars, as the report was done in Canada). He does touch on some basic sound principles, but it's mixed with a lot of really bad (and in some cases illegal) advice. You'll do much better to invest your time and money in reading materials that aren't advertised via infomercials. Kiyosaki may well be rich, but it's from selling his Rich Dad-branded material, not from investing in real estate, or any other investment portfolio See also John T. Reed's guru rating, and his review of Kiyosaki's book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d740d394abaa903f2dee57c1e608dbdc", "text": "As with any business, there's a huge learning curve. Rich Dad gives you the fundamentals.. which are sound.. you then need to spend time getting the nitty gritty details of the business ... be it real estate, stock investing etc. Kiyosaki is a wealthy man... I've listened to some of his podcasts and he know what he's talking about.. AND.. he's been in the business for 20+ years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52dfd7c00f4651032be5d7f3fdf3a5a6", "text": "Kiyosaki says his methods of actions are not suitable for the average investor. They are meant for those wanting to excel at investing, and are willing to work for it. Personally, I wouldn't want to own ten apartments, because it sounds like a terrible headache. I would much rather have a huge portfolio of index funds. I believe that Kiyosaki's method allegedly perform better than the passive 'invest-diversify-hold' strategy, but would require a new mindset and dedication, and are risky unless you are willing to invest a lot of time learning the fine details. I prefer to dedicate my time elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5600bed0504562a8904efa3439539e5", "text": "I have taken the free Kiyosaki evening course, and it does give some good information. It is an upsell to the $500 weekend course, which I also took. That course taught me enough about real-estate investing to get started. I have not yet had the need to pursue his other, more expensive courses. Read his books, take the $500 course, read other people's books on real estate investing, talk to other like-minded individuals, and gain some experience. I understand real estate better than I understand paper assets because I spent more time studying real estate. If you want to invest in real estate, study it first. If you want to invest in paper assets, study those first.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "809d62aaa231ba9b8270f484a753a9d5", "text": "Yes. It's terrible with terrible advice such as insider trading. The insider trading is really the only advice that's not common knowledge such as buy assets not liabilities and pay yourself first. There is nothing in this book that would help anyone become wealthy. In fact is stated that education and savings will not make you rich. Which may be true but those two should never be discounted! This guy is a scam artist and made his millions from the book and nothing else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "988c6575e4ce64a92a839e7605009f72", "text": "It is absolutely a scam. Anyone who tells you they can give you a large amount of money for free is trying to scam you. Additional warning signs include:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0fe70fcf216cba505a9ea34c1cb686f", "text": "There's some really questionable advice in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The one that I always thought was bad advice was when he wrote that people should always pay themselves first and worry about paying down debts later. So if you've got big credit card debts, you should first allocate money to saving and investing and pay your debts later. He says that will inspire you to come up with creative ways to get income to pay off that extra debt because you're under pressure. I don't buy it though. It's something that sounds good, but if you apply it, you end up broke quickly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6bdba3040528635a47946d6d4f18927", "text": "Sounds like the seminar is about using OPM (other people's money), which means you're going to have to find not just real estate, but investors. Those investors are going to need a business plan, contracts, and a lot of work from you to provide as much equity as possible before the property is sold. If you're serious about Real Estate, I suggest finding the most successful broker/agent you can, buying them a beer, glass of wine, or cup of coffee, and picking their brain about it. It'll be cheaper then a scam seminar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e5ab272109b1379ea16fea75b9a8be9", "text": "\"I feel like he's just doing this for the kicks and doesn't really believe in it. But then I see the numerous talks, the book etc and I can't decide. His entire basis for a \"\"idea meritocracy\"\" is that everyone should be truthful or \"\"radical transparency\"\". I do not see the connection at all. You cannot build an idea meritocracy because it inherently means you can judge if an idea succeeds or fails before implementing it. If you want to bias yourself toward successful ideas, it requires nothing more than allowing people to implement what they think and then rewarding the ones who succeed. Basically, I cannot see the point of this \"\"radical transparency\"\" etc. Except for one possibility - his computer algorithm. I feel like that is his grasp at immortality and the algorithm requires stupid tons of data to function. So why not give it to the best source for such data? Top ivy league graduates and brilliant people hired by the one of the biggest hedge funds on the planet. And then sell them on this idea that \"\"radical transparency\"\" is the basis for all success in the firm, and ask them to start inputting data on it.\"", "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": "f0e83abac79447e99dcab2e89824e042", "text": "\"chapter 8 page 154: &gt;\"\"My point is that it's doubts and cynicism that keep most people poor and playing it safe...only a person's doubts keep them poor...'Cynics criticize and winners analyze' was one of [Rich Dad's] favorite mottos\"\" -from chapter 8 page 154 of Robert Kiyosaki's first print edition of *Rich Dad Poor Dad* The whole page is about abandoning cynicism and has nothing to do with that Glenn-Beck-style rant/editorial you've linked to.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5def525b2a57b46bcad7d51eab491630", "text": "\"Can I teach children an invaluable skill for free and provide a website or PayPal link for anyone who appreciates the result of my gift to their child and wishes to gift me money (or maybe they don’t have a child but believe in my revolutionary contribution to the future) as they see fit, up to $10K? Two immediately obvious problems with this strategy: What about when you receive gifts from people who aren't in the US? You have to declare, and pay taxes on, foreign gifts. It seems to me that these may not be gifts because they are given in connection with the service you provided rather than from \"\"detached and disinterested generosity\"\" as required to make the gift tax exempt. (See Commisioner v. Duberstein -- gift given to thank associate for a sales lead did not arise from detached generosity. See Stanton v. United States -- gift given in appreciation of services rendered may or may not be a gift for tax purposes. See also Bogardus v. Commissioner -- gifts inspired by past service can be tax exempt.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65e92dfbe30dcb7849015a337a2daea3", "text": "The money you receive from son would be treated as gift. As per gift tax you can get unlimited money from son and there is no tax implication. You are free to use money as you like. There is no restriction. Any profit you make is taxable as income to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e04d9bd2f8e0286cee97e550d281ad51", "text": "We started with our son about age 5 or so. He was at the time old enough to understand that you buy stuff using money. We don't give allowance, rather we made up a job chart that he can put checks on, and give him a small amount for each job that he does. This is meant to enforce the idea of 'work and get paid, don't work don't get paid', and associate the concept of work and money. We also try to teach him the concept of giving, spending and saving, by having envelopes with those words on them and dividing the 'commission' money between them. The give money is used for a charitable organization. The save money is used in a couple of ways - either to save for a large item that he wants, or to put into a savings account. The spend it money he is free to buy whatever he wants with. We got this plan from the Dave Ramsey Show, and it has been really good so far. The best thing about it is that when we are at the store and he sees something he wants, we can ask 'did you bring your money?' This keeps the begging down to a minimum and also helps us teach him to make a list of stuff he wants and can save for.", "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": "02796cad037fa47f7f1dc2560189d293", "text": "\"What is your biggest wealth building tool? Income. If you \"\"nerf\"\" your income with payments to banks, cable, credit card debt, car payments, and lattes then you are naturally handicapping your wealth building. It is sort of like trying to drive home a nail holding a hammer right underneath the head. Normal is broke, don't be normal. Normal obtains student loans while getting an education. You don't have to. You can work part time, or even full time and get a degree. As an example, here is one way to do it in Florida. Get a job working fast food and get your associates degree using a community college that are cheap. Then apply for the state troopers. Go away for about 5 months, earning an income the whole time. You automatically graduate with a job that pays for state schools. Take the next three years (or more if you want an advanced degree) to get your bachelors. Then start your desirable career. What is better to have \"\"wasted\"\" approx 1.5 years being a state trooper, or to have a student loan payment for 20 years? There is not even pressure to obtain employment right after graduation. BTW, I know someone who is doing exactly what I outlined. Every commercial you watch is geared toward getting you to sign on the line that is dotted, often going into debt to do so. Car commercials will tell you that you are a bad mom or not a real man if you don't drive the 2015 whatever. Think differently, throw out your numbers and shoot for zero debt. EDIT: OP, I have a MS in Comp Sci, and started one in finance. My wife also has a masters. We had debt. We paid that crap off. Work like a fiend and do the same. My wife's was significant. She planned on having her employer pay it off for each year she worked there. (Like 20% each year or something.) Guess what, that did not work out! She went to work somewhere else! Live like you are still in college and use all that extra money to get rid of your debt. Student loans are consumer debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b175b3c5764cb94644ab6dc1c639f056", "text": "I can't tell if he's running something similar to a pyramid scheme &gt;Everyone would work under the same Spartan conditions that Brito embraced. (In New York, Brito shares a large table with his head of sales and his finance chief.) “We always say the leaner the business, the more money we will have at the end of the year to share,” he said in a speech at Stanford in 2008. “I don’t have a company car. I don’t care. I can buy my own car. I don’t need the company to give me beer. I can buy my own beer.” That part is awesome though", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a8bafa654771734c6fee760c149c0fe", "text": "No man, don't you see? The MAN is making students become perpetual debt slaves! To become another cog in the machine! It's all by design. Didn't happen by accident. Martha Stewart's polishing brass on the Titanic. It's all goin' down, man!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27d9e24ac779e2b2ae49ec352be8120e", "text": "\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b9a82cc5ffdef264b2df11525bdba9a3", "text": "Dividends are not fixed. A profitable company which is rapidly expanding, and thus cash-strapped may very well skip dividends, yet that same fast growth makes it valuable. When markets saturate, and expansion stops, the same company may now have a large free cash flow so it can pay dividends.", "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": "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": "8298d7869d0f0edb85f3c152d7d4f565", "text": "\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc7ef593efc8e63c3943b0bccda0122", "text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. In fact just because a company pays a dividend, would you still buy it if the share price kept decreasing year after year? Lets put it this way: Company A makes record profits year after year, continually keeps beating market expectations, its share price keeps going up, but it pays no dividend instead reinvests its profits to continually grow the business. Company B pays a dividend instead of reinvesting to grow the business, it has been surprising the market on the downside for a few years now, it has had some profit warnings lately and its share price has consistently been dropping for over a year. Which company would you be interested in buying out of the two? I know I would be interested in buying Company A, and I would definitely stay away from Company B. Company A may or may not pay dividends in the future, but if Company B continues on this path it will soon run out of money to pay dividends. Most market gains are made through capital gains rather than dividends, and most people invest in the hope the shares they buy go up in price over time. Dividends can be one attractant to investors but they are not the only one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "361690718a70866828f1ed57f6cc28ba", "text": "A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be243534531945387a55667d9391d39", "text": "\"As an owner of a share of a business you also \"\"own\"\" profits made by the business. But you delegate company management to reinvest those profits, on your behalf, to make even more profits. So your share of the business is a little money-making machine that should grow, without you having to pay taxes on the dividends and without you having to decide where to reinvest your share of the profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ce1b8ea4794c2ad88e45f2f68c45be1", "text": "\"Yes, I agree with you. Saying that the value of the stock will grow as the company grows and acquires more assets ... I don't see why. Okay, I'm a nice guy and I want to see other people do well, but what do I care how much money they're making if they're not giving any of it to ME? Frankly I think it's like people who buy commemorative plates or beanie babies or other \"\"collectibles\"\" as an investment. As long as others are also buying them as an investment, and buying and reselling at a profit, the value will continue to go up. But one day people say, Wait, is this little stuffed toy really worth $10,000? and the balloon bursts. Confer Dutch tulips: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-dutch-tulip-bubble-of-1637/ As I see it, what gives a non-dividend-paying stock value is mostly the expectation that at some time in the future it will pay dividends. This is especially true of new start-up companies. As you mentioned, there's also the possibility of a takeover. It wouldn't have to be a hostile takeover, any takeover would do. At that point the buying company either buys the stock or exchanges it for shares of their own. In the first case you now have cash for your investment and in the second case you now have stock in a dividend-paying company -- or in another non-dividend-paying company and you start the cycle over.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972477431e58893d9d8e5cb7f9dea618", "text": "\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "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": "8275ea015abe08b1d099c7fdeb640a42", "text": "It is just a different category of stock issued by a company that gives its owners different treatment when it comes to dividend payment and a few other financial transactions. Preferred stock holders get treated with some preference with regard to the company's profits and assets. For example, dividends are typically guaranteed to preferred stock holders whereas the leadership in the company can elect at any time not to pay dividends to common stockholders. In the event the company is liquidated, the preferred stockholders also get to be in line ahead of common stockholders when the assets are distributed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899", "text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.", "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": "0619eb0ed1ee60b67556347fb051ff16", "text": "There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice.", "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": "292eac97244e913ab4153315d2e1571a", "text": "Stock acquired through a (non-taxable) stock dividend has the same holding period as the stock on which the dividend was paid.", "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": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca1c1d902376642b2036114196a52f8", "text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability.", "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": "7f56bfa4b4678efd8cc9806a01578457", "text": "Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17afa73737a789d0d8c3f1ddca93da58", "text": "\"Stock has value to the buyer even if it does not currently pay dividends, since it is part ownership of the company (and the company's assets). The owners (of which you are now a part) hire managers to make a \"\"dividend policy decision.\"\" If the company can reinvest the profits into a project that would earn more than the \"\"minimum acceptable rate of return,\"\" then they should do so. If the company has no internal investment opportunities at or above this desired rate, then the company has an obligation to declare a dividend. Paying out a dividend returns this portion of profit to the owners, who can then invest their money elsewhere and earn more. For example: The stock market currently has, say, a 5% rate of return. Company A has a $1M profit and can invest it in a project with an expected 10% rate of return, so they should do so. Company B has a $1M profit, but their best internal project only has an expected 2% rate of return. It is in the owners' best interest to receive their portion of their company's profit as a dividend and re-invest it in other stocks. (Others have pointed out the tax deferrment portion of dividend policy, so I skipped that)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ff5cb24583d12967d4db5e7d7eea81", "text": "Buybacks do not increase the company's value. Cash is traded for outstanding shares. This is similar to a dividend, but instead of cash, investors receive a rising share-price. Whether an investor prefers a cash dividend or capital gains is less important than the outcome that their investment is gaining value for them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "635b2da07686ff2edc334ce3019a7d44", "text": "\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"", "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": "778461d4d04e1f3b3c412fae5425ec10", "text": "When you own stock in a company, you do literally own part of the business, even if it's a small portion. Anyone amassing over 50% of shares really does have a controlling interest. No, you can't trade a handful of AAPL shares back to Apple for an iPod, but you can sell the shares and then go buy an iPod with the proceeds. Stock prices change over time because the underlying companies are worth more or less and people are willing to pay more or less for those shares. There is no Ponzi scheme because each share you own can be bought or sold on the open market. Dividends come from the company profits, not from other investors. On the other hand, money only has value because everyone believes it has value. There's the real conspiracy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c3e351e7d6508d85ab2dce52c1be6bd", "text": "\"With regards to \"\"the stock market,\"\" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity. As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea. Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject. He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so. Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world. They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value. It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise. That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains. In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance. Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth. This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit. By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb8c0f954bb7a2e6924705100868bec4", "text": "Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcfc24656923521c499bc64b56448b3c", "text": "\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & 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. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. 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. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcd6f38df9a8a466e7cc2fa5acde92d6", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"", "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": "764546861d56bdb5f695573a8b26477b", "text": "When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3a49ec7121ccfbb8f02d19603c6f2f6", "text": "You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers. That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true). Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years? If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme.", "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": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33", "text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da7807b82f18388c78a07d60511260", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"", "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": "d4f69ccdb76cbda9b9628b622c45fcca", "text": "There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82335e5ef5b4f58813208eb857409415", "text": "How do we define worth? To stock traders and some investors it has value either as a transaction or as a piece in an asset allocation strategy. Is is likely to generate long term revenues and profits that reflect the historical relationship between those factors and stock price performance? Unlikely. It might be a good short term play for the nimble investor but the real test of 'worth' will be after the initial hype dies down. It is what happens to the stock 90 days after it goes public that matters for the long term. Forgetting contributions to society, knowledge and culture, the markets will at that point make their determination about value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c28eb69add00010b45511f54bf8ebe0e", "text": "\"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed \"\"too high\"\" and buy 10 which are \"\"too low\"\" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9762f2e3e92994e473a00118bd94166", "text": "For me, spending my spare time on my career offers better return on investment (time) than stock investing, so I don't have the time to try to craft strategies about stock confusion anyway. It just serves as further proof to me that trying to time the market on short time scales is doomed unless you can account for all the irrationality of human behavior.", "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": "e5c08b35cfcbd50dd86e92a143e7f99e", "text": "Stock prices reflect future expectations of large groups of people, and may not be directly linked to traditional valuations for a number of reasons (not definitive). For example, a service like Twitter is so popular that even though it has no significant revenue and loses money, people are simply betting that it is deeply embedded enough that it will eventually find some way to make money. You can also see a number of cases of IPOs of various types of companies that do not even have a revenue model at all. Also, if there is rapid sales growth in A but B sales are flat, no one is likely to expect future profit growth in B such that the valuation will remain steady. If sales in A are accelerating, there may be anticipation that future profits will be high. Sometimes there are also other reasons, such as if A owns valuable proprietary assets, that will hold the values up. However, more information about these companies' financials is really needed in order to understand why this would be the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "076ed20173f85274209c411312206559", "text": "\"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers. When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again. When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again. So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another). What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by \"\"market sentiment\"\" and speculation. People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company. So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly. The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't. Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down. All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market. Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes. In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as \"\"good\"\" as it's ever been. Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have. By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f56bfa4b4678efd8cc9806a01578457", "text": "Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6e2c4144b03eee8275d2caeee234a0b", "text": "\"Company values (and thus stock prices) rely on a much larger time frame than \"\"a weekend\"\". First, markets are not efficient enough to know what a companies sales were over the past 2-3 days (many companies do not even know that for several weeks). They look at performance over quarters and years to determine the \"\"value\"\" of a company. They also look forward, not backwards to determine value. Prior performance only gives a hint of what future performance may be. If a company shut its doors over a weekend and did no sales, it still would have value based on its future ability to earn profits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3564c1649053ad2f0f001e03b5135072", "text": "Pretty sure the null hypothesis here is that trading equities at a high frequency is a zero sum game. The is no gain that isn't someone else's loss. No goods are created, no knowledge is gained, no value is produced. Note, I didn't say value is destroyed either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d", "text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e6e2c4144b03eee8275d2caeee234a0b", "text": "\"Company values (and thus stock prices) rely on a much larger time frame than \"\"a weekend\"\". First, markets are not efficient enough to know what a companies sales were over the past 2-3 days (many companies do not even know that for several weeks). They look at performance over quarters and years to determine the \"\"value\"\" of a company. They also look forward, not backwards to determine value. Prior performance only gives a hint of what future performance may be. If a company shut its doors over a weekend and did no sales, it still would have value based on its future ability to earn profits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "989448718845535e4a5840c6685f35e0", "text": "Stock values are generally reflective of a company's overall potential; and to some extent investor confidence in the prospect of a continued growth of that potential. Sales over such a short period of time such as a single weekend do not noticeably impact a stock's valuation. A stock's value has more to do with whether or not they meet market expectations for sales over a certain period of time (generally 1 quarter of a year) than it does that they actually had sales (or profits) on any given day. Of course, catastrophic events, major announcements, or new product releases do sometimes cause significant changes in a stock's value. For this reason you will often see stocks have significant volatility in periods around earnings announcements, merger rumors, or when anything unexpected happens in the world that might benefit or hurt their potential sales and growth. But overall a normal, average weekend of sales is already built into the price of a stock during normal trading.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b3df873e2c35947a0dea12b229e1a6b2", "text": "The NYSE holidays are listed online here: https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars", "title": "" }, { "docid": "705ee9b2dcdf79ccdb72df415ee392af", "text": "thanks. I have real time quotes, but in the contest, if you put in a market order the trade might happen at the delayed quote price and not the real time price. Does anyone know at which price it will trade, delayed or real time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7", "text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277fb0725c621d0a061c147680bee5d", "text": "Hours appear to be relatively consistent, at least in my experience. Analysts (all levels) have much more flexible schedules and travel much more but are responsible for more information/responsibility. The difference is that associates do the grunt work with models/writing and analysts provide more direction/fine tuning and interact with clients more(they're on the phone half the time from 7-4 every day). Its generally not night work but if a company announces earnings after market close and then has an evening conference call, we need to have the report out by the next morning well before the market opens, so yeah sometimes it can get pretty late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de44418b1a4e0c4e0b86ac2e3c8cc274", "text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c18cae75fef4be13785d41f25b2afd15", "text": "The usual lazy recommendation: See what similar objects, in similar condition, of similar age, have sold for recently on eBay. That establishes a fair market value by directly polling the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e62eb8056bd1d8bfc666a98e2fbf0919", "text": "\"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89e3beda30f53ba8ac2de67b874e8dd3", "text": "This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd6d21819d04068e9eea9dada5e04ac5", "text": "The opening price is derived from new information received. It reflects the current state of the market. Opening Price Deviation (from Investopedia): Investor expectation can be changed by corporate announcements or other events that make the news. Corporations typically make news-worthy announcements that may have an effect on the stock price after the market closes. Large-scale natural disasters or man-made disasters such as wars or terrorist attacks that take place in the afterhours may have similar effects on stock prices. When this happens, some investors may attempt to either buy or sell securities during the afterhours. Not all orders are executed during after-hours trading. The lack of liquidity and the resulting wide spreads make market orders unattractive to traders in after-hours trading. This results in a large amount of limit or stop orders being placed at a price that is different from the prior day’s closing price. Consequently, when the market opens the next day, a substantial disparity in supply and demand causes the open to veer away from the prior day’s close in the direction that corresponds to the effect of the announcement, news or event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e42588337b533431d5839a751b472ca7", "text": "You typically need to specify that you want the GTC order to be working during the Extended hours session. I trade on TD Ameritrade's Thinkorswim platform, and you can select DAY, GTC, EXT or GTC_EXT. So in your case, you would select GTC_EXT.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cb85ca6365148f787ab8d328ae0bd3", "text": "\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00f280b6a3bea0118a4054cc628994ab", "text": "After-hours trading and alternate venues allow one to trade outside of regular market hours. However there are a few reasons why you would not want to: The purpose of an exchange is to improve liquidity by gathering all buyers and sellers in the same place at the same time. If trading was 24/7, not all market participants would be trading at the same time. Some markets (including NASDAQ) depend on market makers or specialists to help liquidity. These exchanges are able to mandate that the market maker actively make a market in a security during a meaningful percentage of the trading day. Requiring 24/7 active market making may not be reasonable. Trading systems, meaning both exchange infrastructure and market participant infrastructure, need maintenance time. It's nice to have the evenings and weekends for scheduled work. Post-trade clearing and settlement procedures are still somewhat manual at times. You need staff around to handle these processes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a620ff4f8a59262eff925e15f8fb94b", "text": "\"You'd have to check the rules for your broker to make sure that the term is being used in its usual sense, but the typical answer to your question is \"\"no.\"\" A GTC will execute during market hours. You would need to explicitly specify extended hours if you want to execute outside of market hours (which your broker may or may not support).\"", "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": "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": "df3ba61964ad73d3b460b90526748266", "text": "No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13e66e7b5bb601ced10427a971fb9003", "text": "According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5f53938fe4acef1c5ca2cc4e5bb639f7", "text": "\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4", "text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96eaaf4d4da27faaa9cee053a3e9931b", "text": "\"If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a \"\"desk\"\" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is \"\"Flash Boys\"\" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2317c3ed8e078885f5a21b928db1cb73", "text": "If I buy 10 stocks on Monday and sell the same on Tuesday (different trading day) would I be considered a day trader? No. It is only counting if you buy something and then sell that same something during the same trading session. And that counter only lasts for 5 days, things that happened outside of that time period get removed from the counter. If the counter reaches a number (three to five, depending on the broker), then you are labelled as a pattern day trader, and will have your trading capabilities severely restricted unless you have an account size greater than $25,000", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8a45a3e2b81cc0f49f2d5dd2fa11139", "text": "Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something. It's not like E\\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked. That **is** the hard part.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3b07a4b217c94d673981374e4e7ced8", "text": "This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12fd823d45e5e046592c8b8e6b1fc39f", "text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "753e47184ba649c5d93162873e6e30a3", "text": "\"My 401k allows cash holdings to 100% if desired. I'm not sure why some won't, they are making money on your money after all. If you are looking to the funds vehicles for investing suggestions however, they will never allow cash. I found you must go into \"\"Invest on my own\"\" vehicle to make that change. I have beaten and timed this market several times by sitting with cash on the sidelines. The only time I missed it was when I talked to a fund administrator in 2008 dot com crash and stayed in at this suggestion. I told him I didn't see where the market could go much higher as I had made 12-28% on some funds. He was dead wrong of course and I lost 50% that year. Now, trust me, in 2017, assets are grossly overvalued. If they won't let you deposit to cash, don't invest and just save your money until the next crash.\"", "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": "065db451d8f3c8bfac3ce4d576a099a7", "text": "There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).", "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": "d7757af949d34fb59fec0397d70582f1", "text": "\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"", "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": "f7cf47e5739f6c4898bf5d089140baa9", "text": "Yes, you will need to create an actual account. However, when all is done and you are about to log in, there will be an option on whether you want to log in as a live trader or a paper trader. Select the paper trading option and log in and get rich off fake money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc4fec57148f221da98f849fa2699b5", "text": "\"....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock. The seller receives cash. You receive a stock certificate. This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices. There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller. The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years. The day trading robot doesn't \"\"rob\"\" you of any profit.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1bb77fd32ae8e227ef16984ac4c5b8b9", "text": "\"I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called \"\"indirect method\"\" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86855ce8af084a18f712895f3cfb987b", "text": "\"Increase in A/R in balance sheet includes the A/R of acquired businesses. Change in A/R in cash flow statement might say \"\"excluding effects of business acquisitions\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1dbe7bda5a57a5d62c4680327a932c6", "text": "It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d21de280c5002caced348149bc390e", "text": "\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \"\"Other comprehensive income\"\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \"\"foreign currency translation\"\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\"", "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": "aacdae478cdb8a98b2b69eed4440805e", "text": "In general you need to ask yourself how serious you are about tracking your finances. If your GNUCash 'cleared' balance doesn't match your statement, it represents an error on either your part or much less likely the banks part. Tracking down this error might be a real pain, but you will also likely learn from it. So to answer your question - find the entry or entries that don't match and fix them. That said, sometimes indeed this can be very tedious, time consuming and frustrating, especially if it is for a relatively small dollar amount. Time too is money, so in these cases, the 'Expense:Adjustment' might be a reasonable approach.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e5a864f6bc6bba8050209a3d569d11", "text": "\"1. That's a really complicated answer. In short, I think we need to make accounting rules much simpler (I say this as an accountant) in combination with financial education in K-12 school. Most adults in this country can't tell you which is a better investment: something that returns 5% monthly or something that returns 10% annually. They don't know that accounting income and cash flow are different things and what they mean. Accounting rules are sometimes ridiculous. Look at the balance sheet of even a moderate size company. What's in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" and why is that different than net income? Why is it that American Airlines, one of the largest airlines in the world doesn't have a single airplane on their balance sheet? 2. That might be a step in the right direction, but I'm just not sure how effective something like that would be. More comprehensive might be better, but then there's going to be less people that want to take the time.\"", "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": "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": "4c3533a0299064bf878acac048095187", "text": "The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05f2384f318fceeaea2560c1da8ccd3d", "text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35124c3aee792df13fe3a69a181155f4", "text": "\"Here is where I am confused. On the income statement I am looking at it has a line item in cogs that is \"\"change in jobs in progress\"\". Change in JIP = (Starting raw materials, wip, and finished goods) - (Ending raw materials, wip, and finished goods) for the accounting period. From what I researched cost of goods manufactured is added to cogs: \"\"The formula for the cost of goods manufactured is the costs of: direct materials used + direct labor used + manufacturing overhead assigned = the manufacturing costs incurred in the current accounting period + beginning work-in-process inventory - ending work-in-process inventory. A manufacturer's cost of goods sold is computed by adding the finished goods inventory at the beginning of the period to the cost of goods manufactured and then subtracting the finished goods inventory at the end of the period.\"\" So it isnt wip that is in the income statement it is change in inventory. Why do they include the \"\"change of inventory\"\" in cogs? Wont this just be material and labor that should be in for the next accounting period cog calculation?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53dd714fdcde93886c79bef5635ec6a9", "text": "\"First, please allow me to recommend that you do not try gimmickry when financials do give expected results. It's a sure path to disaster and illegality. The best route is to first check if accounts are being properly booked. If they are then there is most likely a problem with the business. Anything out of bounds yet properly booked is indeed the problem. Now, the reason why your results seem strange is because investments are being improperly booked as inventory; therefore, the current account is deviating badly from the industry mean. The dividing line for distinguishing between current and long term assets is one year; although, modern financial accounting theorists & regulators have tried to smudge that line, so standards do not always adhere to that line. Therefore, any seedlings for resale should be booked as inventory while those for potting as investment. It's been some time since I've looked at the standards closely, but this used to fall under \"\"property, plant, & equipment\"\". Generally, it is a \"\"capital expenditure\"\" by the oldest definition. It is not necessary to obsess over initial bookings because inventory turnover will quickly resolve itself, so a simple running or historical rate can be applied to the seedling purchases. The books will now appear more normal, and better subsequent strategic decisions can now be made.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fb5f84f227bcf9ce8d5c1fe5e39467d", "text": "\"I added \"\"Shared money in account\"\" (SMIA) as sub-account of my bank checking (CA) account and moved current difference to that account so total of CA was not changed but now private and shared money is separated. My cases would be handled the following The only downside I see is that now my balance in CA transaction log do not match exactly with bank so reconciliation will be slightly harder.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df9b83154409d75086d28fcae731b329", "text": "\"Ugh... yes, you have to tell us what information you have available. It would be a completely different answer if, for example, you had a balance sheet for a prior period and an income statement for the current period and had to estimate the working capital accounts. If you can't be bothered to \"\"want to give the problem\"\" nobody is going to be bothered to help you with it. Inventory days = days of COGS in inventory. (15 / 360 times cogs). AR is 35 days of sales in AR. 35/360* sales. Vendor credit is accounts payable -- 40 /360 * COGS. If your sales and COGs are given by operating cycle rather than annually, use 50 instead of 360. (for whatever reason, convention says use 360 instead of 365).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d92ce163cbaa2219366d5a87720ef9", "text": "You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed. I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a6861c5a6ac2146025b8a13d9207d3c", "text": "That's pretty typical for introductory problems. It's leading you into an NPV question. They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ac32be0cbf98c69d5b81fc6ed9aab89", "text": "Any accounting software should be able to handle this. When you invoice them, set the invoice date to the date of the event. Then receive a partial payment against that invoice. This will cause your accounting software to display the service income in the correct period as well. So if you sent them invoice for August 7, 2014 event on May 5th, 2014 and they gave you $500 due, you would see this Income in August ($500 on Cash basis, $1000 on Accrual basis. When you received the other $500 in August, you would see $1000 for both methods). You would not see any income in May, when you created the invoice. This is better for revenue matching with the correct period. When you send them same invoice (say 30 days before the event), Set the software to show payments already received (it seems that most online accounting software will do this by default). Here is an example in Freshbooks. Here is an example in Xero: Seems they both display information on when you can expect payment on the their respective dashboards. In the Desktop version of Quickbooks (which I use a lot), it will not show the balance of the customer by default on an invoice. You will have to modify the invoice template. There are more details on that here. In Desktop version of Quickbooks, you can look at Cash Flow Forecast report to see the expected amount coming in. I hope that helps and good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ea816f8a5cdceb7b98027f7392c287e", "text": "They changed the way trailing interest is calculated back in 2008 if I recall correctly. The idea at the time was that the interest charges to the customer were somewhat less, but it made trying to get a payoff quote a PITA. They used to take payments for more than the current balance due at that time, however. I can't provide any insight as to why they won't now, though.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "258018bc30de9480e38e90433adec6f5", "text": "\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \"\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\"\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e2e68179cb7715afc6b734828b30557", "text": "PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa8cc9360cece43923f2b00278f1931", "text": "\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "763b874917da099d22ea9724fbc4d829", "text": "PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899", "text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e00b39ad638ff408ef177d9410a9e8", "text": "Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a4af6d5d949050b38d46a09f9238888", "text": "And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "590aa6996f150a72de01c54b41dfb58b", "text": "A value of zero or a negative value makes the percent change meaningless. Saying 100% when going from 0 to some other value is simply wrong. I have seen a similar situation several times when looking at a public company with a loss last quarter. On Google Finance or some other service, the PE ratio will be blank, N/A, or something like that. If the company does not currently have earnings, then the PE ratio is meaningless. Likewise, if the company previously did not have earnings, then the percent change of the earnings is meaningless. Also consider the example where the previous value was negative. If the previous value was negative 1 and the current value is positive 99, then this happens: A negative change? But the value went up! Obviously that value does not make sense and should not be shown.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72405e4b94676de0eaf1aac18d330f2", "text": "In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b14dd8648d5c653d81d1eed23318e43d", "text": "This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "955455502d9a711735c3029de66b96ca", "text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ffd01eef86a6cb41ff9c06ef701b72b", "text": "In general, liquidity is a good thing, because it means it is easy for you to buy or sell a stock. Since high liquidity stocks have a lot of trading, the bid-ask spreads tend to be pretty low. That means you can go into the market and trade easily and cheaply at just about any time. For low liquidity stocks, the bid-ask spreads can get pretty high, so it can make it hard or expensive to get into or out of your trades. On the flip side, everyone pays attention to high liquidity stocks, so it's harder to get an edge in your trading. For a company like Microsoft there are 30-50 full time analysts that cover them, thousands of professional traders and millions of investors in general all reading the same new articles and looking through the same financials as you. But in low liquidity stocks, there probably aren't any analysts, a few professional traders and maybe a few thousand total investors, so it can be easier to find a good buy (or sell). In general, high liquidity doesn't mean that everyone is selling or everyone is buy, it just means everyone is trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da7807b82f18388c78a07d60511260", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49af1a7aa7b174792ea7e082421cc332", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "158613481e53d89848c31269ff5ff721", "text": "I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.", "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": "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": "16b8b7de9304dbd8cc5d377e97780409", "text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e1fdcd7e54bb83602f5e55c5b27dc940", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.", "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": "274e727752ce9db03711d4dd8ccc5128", "text": "No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5", "text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.", "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": "91284308cba499b85643f7b82623a40f", "text": "Underwriting manager here. It's not a big deal. Call your processor or loan officer tomorrow to make sure it's been cleared. My guess is that the underwriter or loan officer noted the discrepancy and corrected it in their systems. You'll have to sign a updated 1003 and 4506T at closing with correct info. In other words...no biggie, no worries. Not a show stopper at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db92ce858b3591cf4d0933e4c1a1d624", "text": "\"No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an \"\"initial margin\"\" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad", "text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "557a6cad91cdbb47585518cd2448d807", "text": "If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.", "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": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a", "text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f2843f0727becf25573f503842927fc", "text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1", "text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "604d6e6632bbe79b43c46d666b062db5", "text": "TL;DR: The date they were granted. (Usually, this follows both an offer and acceptance.) It's not uncommon for a new vesting clock to start when there's a new round of funding coming in, because the investors want to make sure the key people are going to be engaged and incentivized going forward from that point. They don't lower their expectations for how long they want folks engaged based on the person having started earlier. Non-institutional investors may have the same concerns as institutional investors here and use the same vesting strategy to address them. Primary recognition of the benefits from having had people start earlier or be there longer (so long as it correlates with having gotten more done) is embedded in the valuation (which affects how much founders' shares are diluted in the raise).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0309fbecb80a3a101cb7c7470f46ecb8", "text": "\"the way they explain it is this: say you contribute 1 million each month from july 2010 to june 2011, they wait for the 12 million at the end of the year and \"\"start to invest\"\" it at the start of the next financial year (july 2011 to june 2012). so after june 2012, they'll get the profit, subtract admin costs and all, then announce the balance as interest. the interest announced applies to the whole 12 million from 2010-11. i guess the excuse here is that since they announce interest per financial year, they wouldn't have enough time to properly invest money collected towards the end months of apr, may and june, if they were to announce interest in the following july.. so they'd need another year to properly do the investing for that money collected. how else would you handle giving interest for money collected in june? i can see their point but i just feel like there's something off there.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "45f75f318140ab32ba09e27eb9b885aa", "text": "\"Investing in an existing company is almost like buying a house, or even becoming an \"\"Angel investor\"\" in a start-up. Before you start the process, decide how much you want to be involved in the day-to-day and which industries you would feel most comfortable in. The latter is an important consideration since you would have to know sufficient about the industry in order to evaluate the quality of your prospective investment. Searching for a suitable business is a time-consuming process: The guidance for evaluating any company has been answered in another question, so I'll simply link. Most business owners are looking to their businesses to provide them a pension, so they often look to sell around retirement age. Buying such a business is tricky - you may be assisting the next generation to finance the purchase which can have it's own struggles. Ideally you'll be looking for a young(ish) company with proven sales and which is looking to finance growth in an optimal way. Such a company may have many options for raising capital so you'll be competing to invest. As to whether or not it's a good idea... KFC only became a household name and global franchise after Pete Harman joined Harland Sanders as a partner. Richard and Maurice McDonald may have founded McDonald's but it was Ray Kroc who made it a success. New partners bring in new ideas and fresh energy which the original entrepreneurs may have lost during the difficulties of starting out. But that goes back to my first query; just how much do you want to get involved?\"", "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": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123", "text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a", "text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f9a983c9f3d7c33a93dfd9dbe49aef", "text": "It depends on the firm. I was interviewing with a few PE firms a few months ago, and the structure can vary. Some were definitely just LBO shops where the bulk of the staff were focused just on the deal. I remember a couple, however, that placed a lot of emphasis on getting in-house after the deal and performing what ultimately amounted to long term management consulting. These firms tended to hold companies for like 10+ years iirc. It sounds like there might be options out there in line with your passions, you just need to be pretty picky with the firm you join. I only remember one firm's name off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to pm it to you if you want to do some more research yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7", "text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.", "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": "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": "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": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d57b67ca815daf49301d978bbff5b9", "text": "\"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for \"\"robo investor\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4169e685a12d264278d31530c50068e", "text": "Here is a nice overview from Vanguard on some options for a small business owner to offer retirement accounts. https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-business/compare-plans I would look over the chart and decide which avenue is best for you and then call around to investment companies (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. etc.) asking for pricing information.", "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": "35ed04b2dace3b1397574bc03dc60917", "text": "\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e05f0c1f8a91df35f4a20898dda67e", "text": "Shorts are difficult because you have to find someone to lend the stock to you. In contrast, put options don't require that. They also have some nice properties like you're only out the contract price. The options chain for BSFT will give you an idea of where the market is. Keep in mind that BSFT only IPO'd last year and announced blowout earnings recently. Make sure the P:E you're looking at is using recent earnings reports!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5419b5d99a25ab6ee6fa2ee99b2fda05", "text": "Company X located outside a military base offer discounts to military as a form of marketing. They want to encourage a group of potential customers to use their store/service. In some cases they are competing with subsidized store on the base. In other cases their only competition is other stores outside the base. The smart ones also understand the pay structure of military pay to make it easier for enlisted to stretch their money for the entire month. The government doesn't offer compensation to the business near bases. The businesses see their offer and discount as advertising expenses, and are figured into the prices they have to charge all customers. You will also see these types of discounts offered by some businesses in college towns. They are competing with the services on the campus and with other off-campus businesses. Some also allow the use of campus dollars to make it easier for the student to spend money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ea4c5bd8120958f2633315894b70acd", "text": "Nope, only base commissaries or BX/PX's are subsidized. The rest is just done for goodwill/marketing purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cc88a19828747e9b42f464be2179a3d", "text": "This story is about military grocery stores - i.e.: grocery stores for military personnel on military bases. There are no discounts for military personnel in a regular grocery store. But they may have subsidised prices in grocery stores located inside a military installation, and these are those stores that the story is talking about.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3b36305cf5bd1204e47a99690160c354", "text": "The vendor needs to do this using apportionment, according to the VAT rules for mixed supplies: If you make mixed supplies and the individual supplies are not liable to VAT at the same rate then you need to work out the tax value of each supply in order to calculate how much tax is due. If the tax value is based on the total price you charge (see paragraph 7.3) you do this by splitting that price between the supplies. This is called an apportionment ... There is no special method of apportionment ... However, your calculations must be fair and you must be able to justify them. It is usually best to use one of the methods shown in section 32. The section 32 referred to really relates to apportioning use between business and non-business purposes, but it implies that splitting up the total price in proportion to the original prices would probably be fair. So in your example the vendor might split the £5 discount equally between the spoon and the carrycot as they had the same gross cost, and pay VAT as if each had cost £7.50 gross. The vendor could also do it in proportion to their net (pre-VAT) prices and thus apportion a bit more of the discount to the carrycot than the spoon, but as this would lead to them paying slightly more tax overall they probably wouldn't choose to. However, none of this is likely to be too relevant to a consumer, since in the UK prices must be presented as the gross (VAT-inclusive) amounts and so the discounts will also apply to those amounts. It will of course affect how much of the purchase price the vendor ends up paying on to the government and thus might indirectly affect what discounts the vendor is willing to offer.", "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": "587515473167c699e207b1b0223ac9a7", "text": "Some companies offer discounts for shareholders. I believe Disney used to do so, for example; if your family was doing the Disneyland-every-year routine that could be a significant benefit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c31a3227567e200c6833277d01c6a8c5", "text": "Yeah, that's the problem fuck-0. Walmart makes tons of money in profit and their employees are using state benefits. This isn't a problem for you? The government is subsidizing walmarts employee benefits. In other words we are socializing walmarts losses and walmart is privatizing their gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6d424c1dc7a5cfa5ecc510e1fd6c9c9", "text": "\"Welcome to America! This country is not meant to be a free ride. I personally (single, \"\"native\"\" male) pay a significant amount each year to Uncle Sam and receive no benefits at all. Where do \"\"natives\"\" sign up for the free stuff?!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90753069d6f5cf4ef352e28770c22fca", "text": "I applaud all forms of tax evasion. Considering that taxation is nesesary for on-going war, it's highly immoral to pay your taxes. It will only lead to death. However, it sounds like they're paying lots of taxes. 46 + 11.7 = 57.7% How is that a loophole? Sounds like they're getting shellacked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aca17aa68b38ca7ef1beabd9752cf44b", "text": "Maybe but would it be ruined if that 10% was merely moved from DoD money to funding local businesses or something? The downside of defense funding is that even if it provides jobs, it's not self sustainable, whereas if you used that money to fund startups/local businesses, those things could potentially eventually grow or at least not require additional funding. Then your city would not require outside funding to survive which is even better no?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcbf762f2bd16440bc83a5320a6dfc65", "text": "Lots of places in the US do it. Although the way that they usually phrase it is 'prices reflect a x.x% discount for cash' since most of the credit card companies have an agreement that says you cannot charge a surcharge if someone is using a credit card. So they get around it by giving a discount for cash. effect is the same, but it skirts the letter of the agreement", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e151c1cbf2497a78b250d5bf908a283", "text": "Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "189af17bb561308c0e9af7c8c6b7990a", "text": "\"Wireless capabilities see Nikola tesla every type of communication outside of the walkie talkie really was created without the government. So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? This is where this bullshit statist logic falls apart because the only rebuttal you have is \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along, federal sales tax. With federal sales tax there are no deductions or coercion. Also the more money individuals have in their pocket (disposable income) the more likely they are to spend and grow the economy. That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. So if people have more disposable income causing them to have more purchasing power a federal sales tax would probably do better than an income tax and the people would receive something tangible instead of just losing 25% of their pay check. Btw don't ever say my income tax pays for roads because they don't that's what a gas tax is for. A majority of our infrastructure is paid for with revenue from other taxes not income. Income taxes pay mostly into military budget and social programs ie social security\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4238d8bca80b3137bfbbcc64c2c502c3", "text": "So, the point of the article is that the taxpayers are making up for what Walmart isn't paying. But, walmart pays way more than what it's employees are using. Employees use government programs, Walmartpays more than double of the cost of those programs, so no cost at all is passed to the taxpayers. Walmart WOULD be evil if they didn't pay taxes. But they do. The article is nonsense. We get it. You don't like big business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0895722089cb5cba4791e7a5430c58cc", "text": "Sony has been doing this for years and nobody complains. But I do see the point, it keeps companies like WalMart and Best Buy from destroying small businesses. Ohio does the same thing with beer and cigarrette prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b85c369867a2a52513878d8ffb159c5c", "text": "Most people have no problem paying for schools, millitary, or other socially optimizing externalities. People do have a problem with paying for free rides for others, where only the person receiving the benefits gains anything and everyone else has to pay the bill.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b77d828f6613f0ab429d1616150c616f", "text": "They are entitled to a benefit for things for survival, This is not a UBI. If they have enough food to be giving it away, the system isn't working properly. You think because they're (the abusers of the system) are being a useless member of society that they are entitled to have these benefits, which legally they are, but this should not be a long term solution for millions of people, which it is. Are we talking about a small amount of people, from what google says its a pretty big issue. We have a military, start your own rant thread about that if you want to talk about that or better yet, go join the military and fix it from the inside out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b5c54ff120afef635a7ccc6d9a68fda", "text": "\"I think often times the personality traits that make founders so successful are the same traits that keep them from giving up control. By the time you've made it to the top of the mountain you've proven everyone who ever said \"\"do this\"\" wrong. So people saying \"\"step aside\"\" isn't going to do anything but convince you that you can prove them wrong again. It's easy to say \"\"put your ego to the side\"\" but when your stubbornness and smarts helped get you where you are, it's not easy to look inside yourself and say \"\"I'm not the best guy for this.\"\"\"", "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": "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": "8f27920a96da3bee8da7e7f98c9a00d8", "text": "\"I believe Tom Au answered your key question. Let me just add in response to, \"\"What if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company?\"\" This happens all the time. Bob Senior is a brilliant business man, he starts a company, it is wildly successful, then he dies and Bob Junior inherits the company. (If it's a privately owned company he may inherit it directly; if it's a corporation he inherits a controlling interest in the stock.) Bob Junior knows nothing about how to run a business. And so he mismanages the company, runs it into the ground, and eventually it goes bankrupt. Stock holders lose their investment, employees lose their jobs, and in general everyone is very unhappy. I suppose it also happens that someone gets rich doing thing A and then decides that he's going to buy a business that does thing B. He has no idea how to run a business doing thing B and he destroys the company. I can't think of any specific examples of this off the top of my head, but I've heard of it happening with people who make a ton of money as actors or professional athletes and then decide to start a business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11e1ebe3d71db1e3366bbc19928f5024", "text": "\"The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so \"\"if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company\"\" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it.\"", "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": "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": "12693d5ab42b95c35af04f25645e47be", "text": "It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6bc779bbc88c442ac003d44cff045a", "text": "You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "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": "3eba0ee9b9ecd19532789be1d9146812", "text": "\"I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer. Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend \"\"an hour per month on each stock\"\" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that \"\"should be\"\" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89d2a641744984e2edbf16e4a5d12d4", "text": "Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.", "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": "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": "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": "d05dee1feed3d605a45f0576e8a43dbd", "text": "\"It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you \"\"doubling down\"\" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90aba0d9207276fd2fe9e3902a3e306", "text": "\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b32701eca361387d32f57d1bcda9f2b7", "text": "I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1a7b146aee22e84eaa261388f7d56b0", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b204b1ac56d47235c85b96f0a5a43c4", "text": "Does Coke count as one of his operating businesses though? He's the biggest shareholder but wikipedia says it's around 26%. There are some other huge cash cows in there as well; BNSF Railroad's earnings were like $3.5 billion last year, and Berkshire own 100% of the business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "764546861d56bdb5f695573a8b26477b", "text": "When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75423c42d7f054dc33f42d982df55afc", "text": "Only if you sell the stock in question, and use the proceeds to buy other stock. (You should probably never feel bad about selling your company stock, even if it goes up a lot later, because from a risk-exposure basis you are already exposed to your company's performance through your career. Unless you have a lot of other savings, you should diversify.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b690c669a900ba8cb6e625b06c76349b", "text": "I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bb0c5c46cfaa2d01754b7181fb667bda", "text": "\"Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Not normally.* The stock market as a whole, on average, increases in value over time. So if we make the claim that the market is a zero-sum game, and you only make money if other people lose money, that idea is not sustainable. There aren't that many people that would keep investing in something only to continue to lose money to the \"\"winners.\"\" The stock market, and the companies inside it, grow in value as the economy grows. And the economy grows as workers add value with their work. Here's an analogy: I can buy a tree seed for very little and plant it in the ground. If I do nothing more, it probably won't grow, and it will be worth nothing. However, by taking the time to water it, fertilize it, weed it, prune it, and harvest it, I can sell the produce for much more than I purchased that seed for. No one lost money when I sell it; I increased the value by adding my effort. If I sell that tree to a sawmill, they can cut the tree into usable lumber, and sell that lumber at a profit. They added their efforts and increased the value. A carpenter can increase the value even further by making something useful (a door, for example). A retail store can make that door more useful by transporting it to a location with a buyer, and a builder can make it even more useful by installing it on a house. No one lost any money in any of these transactions. They bought something valuable, and made it more valuable by adding their effort. Companies in the stock market grow in value the same way. A company will grow in value as its employees produce things. An investor provides capital that the company uses to be able to produce things**, and as the company grows, it increases in value. As the population increases and more workers and customers are born, and as more useful things are invented, the economy will continue to grow as a whole. * Certainly, it is possible, even common, to profit from someone else's loss. People lose money in the stock market all the time. But it doesn't have to be this way. The stock market goes up, on average, over the long term, and so long term investors can continue to make money in the market even without profiting from others' failures. ** An investor that purchases a share from another investor does not directly provide capital to the company. However, this second investor is rewarding the first investor who did provide capital to the company. This is the reason that the first investor purchased in the first place; without the second investor, the first would have had no reason to invest and provide the capital. Relating it to our tree analogy: Did the builder who installed the door help out the tree farmer? After all, the tree farmer already sold the tree to the sawmill and doesn't care what happens to it after that. However, if the builder had not needed a door, the sawmill would have had no reason to buy the tree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e", "text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6828c8aac1235a11ea839878bf006177", "text": "\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50a1ec0c43de99a3a1f96176f3529abe", "text": "The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a71675b9836aa15aa4c731de5b111055", "text": "Just because your slice of pie gets bigger doesn't necessarily mean someone else's becomes smaller. In a lot of cases it's the entire pie that gets bigger. Why is the pie bigger? More investors (savers turn investors; foreign investments, etc.), more money printed (QE anyone?), Market sentiment changes (stock is priced by perceptions) And it can certainly get smaller.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33", "text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"", "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": "39a848a90a40001a3be0c299807ab126", "text": "\"In gambling, the house also takes a cut, so the total money in the game is shrinking by 2-10 percent. So if you gain $100, it's because other people lost $105, and you do this for dozens of plays, so it stacks up. The market owns companies who are trying to create economic value - take nothing and make it something. They usually succeed, and this adds to the total pot and makes all players richer regardless of trades. Gambling is transactional, there's a \"\"pull\"\" or a \"\"roll\"\" or a \"\"hand\"\", and when it's over you must do new transactions to continue playing. Investing parks your money indefinitely, you can be 30 years in a stock and that's one transaction. And given the long time, virtually all your gains will be new economic value created, at no one else's expense, i.e. Nobody loses. Now it's possible to trade in and out of stocks very rapidly, causing them to be transactional like gambling: the extreme example is day-trading. When you're not in a stock long enough for the company to create any value (paid in dividends or the market appreciating the value), then yes, for someone to gain, someone else must lose. And the house takes a cut (e.g. Etrade's $10 trading fee in and out). In that case both players are trying to win, and one just had better info on average. Another case is when the market drops. For instance right after Brexit I dumped half my domestic stocks and bought Euro index funds. I gambled Euro stocks would rebound better than US stocks would continue to perform. Obviously, others were counterbetting that American stocks will still grow more than Euro will rebound. Who won that gamble? Certainly we will all do better long-term, but some of us will do better-er. And that's what it's all about.\"", "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": "e4c6e5916ea50d892d8f3e18ae1777d2", "text": "Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883", "text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"", "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": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840", "text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a26e032ec69dd475378513b87584923a", "text": "The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d3dba315747ed2556b43f997f5e25", "text": "You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd619dbf12a5842646b8f3a2a387df3e", "text": "\"The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest \"\"at random\"\", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to \"\"investing at random\"\". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade \"\"at random\"\", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd0b25899dfe8a0d7965310d6cfc769b", "text": "Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47924d77851cc791bfe47086512ad691", "text": "The earlier answers answered the question on how a more practical trader can lose money. Here I'd like to mention some obtuse ways Using debt to buy stocks. If one is borrowing at a higher rate than they are getting back, from an economics prospective their stocks are losing money even if the value of those stocks are going up. Using debt to buy stocks. I'll simplify the nightmare situation. I know someone who has Y dollars of cash. Their broker will loan them X. With their X+Y money, they purchase some equities through the broker. The agreement of the loan is that if the value of those equities drops below a certain percentage of the outstanding debt (ex 150%), the broker will automatically and without notification, sell some equities indiscriminately to reduce the outstanding debt. Being in high-interest debt but buying stocks. There are millions of people who are paying 15+% interest rates on consumer debt while investing and getting 5% returns or less on average. Similar to an earlier point, from an economics prospective the choice to buy equities is a profit losing choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc5eee7dc69b5b6abe644a127fc97e84", "text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.", "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": "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": "31a82b7ed7528351a9da8c523b16833e", "text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"", "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": "5660775a39f180ceab7a8dbd3255f8b4", "text": "Fake stock market trading may teach you about trading, which isn't necessarily the same thing as investing. I think you need to understand how things work and how to read financial news and statistics before you start trading. Otherwise, you're just going to get frustrated when you mysteriously win and lose funny money. I'd suggest a few things: Also, don't get into individual stocks until you have at least $5k to invest -- focus on saving and use ETFs or mutual funds. You should always invest in around a half dozen diversified stocks at a time, and doing that with less than $1,000 a stock will make it impossible to trade and make money -- If a $100 stock position goes up 20%, you haven't cleared enough to pay your brokerage fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3965ebcc47d710ff6853b5136b318382", "text": "\"The seriousness of your situation depends on whether your girlfriend was owed a refund for each tax return she failed to file, or whether she owed additional money. If she owed money on one or more of the tax returns she failed to file, stop! It is time to consult a lawyer. At the very least, you need to contact an accountant who specialises in this sort of thing. She will owe interest and penalties, and may be liable for criminal prosecution. There are options available and lawyers who specialise in this sort of thing (e.g. this one, from a simple google search). If she is in this position, you need professional help and you need it soon, so you can make a voluntary disclosure and head off criminal prosecution. Assuming the taxes are fairly simple, you are likely looking at a few thousand dollars, but probably less than $7,500, for professional help. There will be substantial penalties assessed as well, for any taxes owing. If you wait until the CRA starts proceedings, you are most likely looking at $10,000 to $50,000, assuming the matter is not too complicated, and would be facing the possibility of a jail term not exceeding five years. If she was due a refund on every single one of the tax returns she failed to file, or at least if she did not owe additional money, you are probably in a situation you can deal with yourself. She will want to file all of the tax returns as soon as possible, but will not be assessed a penalty. I have personally filed taxes several months late a number of times, when I was owed a refund. You may still want to consider professional help, but it is probably not necessary. Under no circumstances should she allow her father near her finances again, ever. You should also be careful to trust any responses to this question, including my response, because we are unlikely to be professional accountants (I certainly am not). You are well outside the abilities of an H&R Block \"\"accountant\"\" in this matter and need a real certified accountant and/or a lawyer who specialises in Failure To File cases.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "641bd43f251dadbdf5ca1d0a1a7a0552", "text": "\"Is there anything I need to ask or consider during my negotiation process based on the fact that they probably will soon be own by another company? Very tricky situation. You are being hired by one company, and one hiring manager. But you already know that there are big changes ahead. What you don't know is how all those changes will actually play out. You will at least end up working for a different company. I've worked for several companies in the past that were acquired, and some that acquired other companies. After each acquisition, the nature of the company changed significantly. Some teams were let go completely (often \"\"overhead\"\" departments like accounting, marketing, etc, that were handled at the corporate level), some teams were moved to a different location, others stayed the same. Sometimes management changed. In one case I was working for a new boss who worked out of the home office in another state. The time frame for these changes ranged from immediately, to several years after the acquisition. For me at least, some of the things that made the job appealing earlier typically were gone. Try as best you can to ask questions about the acquisition, and about the nature of the acquiring company. If they are allowed to tell you the name of the company that is acquiring them, do some searching. See if you can find out how the company typically deals with acquisitions - do they immediately let almost everyone go (keeping only the \"\"essential\"\" few), or do they run new acquisitions as separate divisions and leave them alone for at least a while? Try to find out from your hiring manager what their expectations are for your specific team post-acquisition. Try to find out if anything within your offer is subject to change, post-acquisition. Are you being hired under the old, pre-acquisition rules? Or under the new, post-acquisition rules? The fact that you even know the company is being acquired is good. Often, companies cannot even divulge that fact until very near the end. On the other hand your use of the phrase \"\"probably will soon\"\", makes me wonder how much is definite here. Here's something you might wish to read: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20357/a-coworker-beat-me-to-resignation-how-can-i-resign-in-a-professional-manner\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50e54234a4e99e7bc7dca661b03ebffd", "text": "The best answer I can give is - be prepared for change. There's no perfect question you can ask or assurance you can get prior to accepting the offer that will give you any particularly perfect security or sense of stability here. The company itself is going through a change of identity that can change how it will do business and even what the business is and how revenue is acquired. In the time of the acquisition your role within the company could change radically for better or worse, it could even be eliminated entirely. If that type of uncertainty doesn't appeal to you - don't take the position. If you are absolutely psyched about this job, the best thing you can do is to learn more about the business itself and see if you can make any educated bets about how your role will play into the changes in business strategy that will come with the acquisition.", "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": "6c0f4d3144474b9d0a1a7381620979cc", "text": "It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8", "text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d64cc61d51f6e72fa565a083d8f3bf26", "text": "MattMcA definitely gave you excellent advice and said a lot of what I would say to you. Most databases that are going to give you the most comprehensive information, but in a well formatted way, are going to require subscriptions or a fee. You should try to visit a library, especially one at a university, because they may likely have free access for you. At my alma mater the preferred database among students was LexisNexis Corporate Affiliations. http://www.corporateaffiliations.com/ With this company directory, you get public and private company profiles. You can use Corporate Affiliation’s MergerTrak™ and get full coverage on current and past mergers and acquisitions. I definitely think this is a business database you should look into. You have nothing to lose seeing as they have a free trial. Just to add, there’s always a business news feed on the homepage. As I just checked now, this one caught my interest: For Marvel Comics, A Renewed Digital Mission.", "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": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb", "text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f9a983c9f3d7c33a93dfd9dbe49aef", "text": "It depends on the firm. I was interviewing with a few PE firms a few months ago, and the structure can vary. Some were definitely just LBO shops where the bulk of the staff were focused just on the deal. I remember a couple, however, that placed a lot of emphasis on getting in-house after the deal and performing what ultimately amounted to long term management consulting. These firms tended to hold companies for like 10+ years iirc. It sounds like there might be options out there in line with your passions, you just need to be pretty picky with the firm you join. I only remember one firm's name off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to pm it to you if you want to do some more research yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11be041a4602cb98ea6178e945d96c5", "text": "\"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you \"\"the plan is terminating\"\". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb01897442967732700188d70b1e2d55", "text": "This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace", "text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23cee925ddbb4a7e32c9671b6bf45718", "text": "It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e97dd86a3520192f5e14722856c990a9", "text": "\"It is not a \"\"riskless\"\" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these \"\"subject to...\"\" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a \"\"sure deal\"\": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302c61b590ca3faf629e6dea9041552a", "text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16d613be361973044b4f7d4185a95491", "text": "Obviously, there's some due diligence and quantitative analysis. However, it's mostly just what they can secure, for how much and how quickly. For instance, if you had a bakery that was netting 200,000/yr and needed 750,000 to open a new location. The bank will give you the loan over 10 years at 1.1%. Well, it's probably a good idea to take on debt. That's 6938 a month (I think). Edit: Or issue debt yourself. However, let's say you're merging with someone in the same industry. They have a market cap of 10 billion. Your company has a market cap of 62 billion and revenue of 11.8 billion a year. It's probably a good idea to secure with equity. Especially because you believe the merger will help you expand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b54284dec28913e221731174dbe2fe02", "text": "Seems a little early. Here's my advice: if you don't feel ready, you're probably not completely ready. In that case, it would probably be best if you worked as the assistant to the president of your business for a while to learn the ins and outs. Even if you are confident, keep the current president around to help. Maybe they can occupy the vice president position while you take over ownership. You'll want somebody there who knows what's up when shit hits the fan.", "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": "10578bd9fa925722e0c08f957486637d", "text": "It depends upon in how many currencies your business is denominated. If your business is solely dependent upon this one payer, it's best to start up a new set of books in USD. All accounts should be translated from CAD from a date preceding the USD activity. The CAD books should be closed, and all should be done with the new USD books. If your business will continue to use both USD & CAD, it's best to have two sets of books, one for USD and one for CAD. Multi-currency books are a nightmare and should be avoided at all costs. Also, with the way you describe your situation, it appears as if you're also blending your household and business books. This should also be avoided for best practices.", "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": "d843bca1e943e85e1b0348c3812e7a6c", "text": "\"GNUCash won't show 'Credit Card' type accounts in \"\"Process Payment\"\", as of v.2.6.1. A workaround is to create another account of type A/Payable. Then, transfer the operations you want to pay via \"\"Process Payment\"\" to this new account. It should be visible now. A drawback is that you have split your current Credit Card debt, which makes it harder to track. Alternatively you may wish to only use this new account for all your credit card related expenses. Another alternative is processing payments for these purchases manually to keep the 'credit card' accounts consistent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea5c5652e7b5488b676fca707598ad9b", "text": "This started as a comment but then really go too long so I am posting an answer: @yarun, I am also using GnuCash just like you as a non-accountant. But I think it really pays off to get to know more about accounting via GnuCash; it is so useful and you learn a lot about this hundreds of years old double entry system that all accountants know. So start learning about 5 main accounts and debits and credits, imho. It is far easier than one can think. Now the answer: even without balancing amounts exactly program is very useful as you still can track your monthly outgoings very well. Just make/adjust some reports and save their configurations (so you can re-run quickly when new data comes in) after you have classified your transactions properly. If I still did not know what some transactions were (happens a lot at first import) - I just put them under Expenses:Unaccounted Expenses - thus you will be able to see how much money went who knows where. If later you learn what those transactions were - you still can move them to the right account and you will be pleased that your reports show less unaccounted money. How many transactions to import at first - for me half a year or a year is quite enough; once you start tracking regularly you accumulate more date and this becomes a non-issue. Reflecting that personal finance is more about behaviour than maths and that it is more for the future where your overview of money is useful. Gnucash wil learn from import to import what transactions go where - so you could import say 1 or 3 month intervals to start with instead of a while year. No matter what - I still glance at every transaction on import and still sometimes petrol expense lands in grocery (because of the same seller). But to spot things like that you use reports and if one month is abnormal you can drill down to transactions and learn/correct things. Note that reports are easy to modify and you can save the report configurations with names you can remember. They are saved on the machine you do the accounting - not within the gnucash file. So if you open the file (or mysql database) on another computer you will miss your custom reports. You can transfer them, but it is a bit fiddly. Hence it makes sense to use gnucash on your laptop as that you probably will have around most often. Once you start entering transactions into GnuCash on the day or the week you incur the expense, you are getting more control and it is perhaps then you would need the balance to match the bank's balance. Then you can adjust the Equity:Opening Balances to manipulate the starting sums so that current balances match those of your bank. This is easy. When you have entered transactions proactively (on the day or the week) and then later do an import from bank statement the transactions are matched automatically and then they are said to be reconciled (i.e. your manual entry gets matched by the entry from your statement.) So for beginning it is something like that. If any questions, feel free to ask. IMHO this is a process rather a one-off thing; I began once - got bored, but started again and now I find it immensely useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b2553ca379034c58a9b65547529cb50", "text": "\"Amount is the closest single word. \"\"Amount in dollars\"\" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting. \"\"Amount and currency\"\" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies. An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon. Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included. If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement. Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money. For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency. 100 dollars, or 100 Euro. There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars. So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to \"\"List the amount and currency.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c673ccd11ad9d1f7ff188d2f48f926e3", "text": "How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97793b3a30e5346c88a4c290d48d8e81", "text": "\"That's Imbalance-USD (or whatever your default currency is). This is the default \"\"uncategorized\"\" account. My question is, is it possible to get the \"\"unbalanced\"\" account to zero and eliminate it? Yes, it's possible to get this down to zero, and in fact desirable. Any transactions in there should be reviewed and fixed. You can delete it once you've emptied it, but it will be recreated the next time an unbalanced transaction is entered. Ideally, I figure it should autohide unless there's something in it, but it's a minor annoyance. Presumably you've imported a lot of data into what's known as a transaction account like checking, and it's all going to Imbalance, because it's double entry and it has to go somewhere. Open up the checking account and you'll see they're all going to Imbalance. You'll need to start creating expense, liability and income accounts to direct these into. Once you've got your history all classified, data entry will be easier. Autocomplete will suggest transactions, and online transaction pull will try to guess which account a given transaction should match with based on that data.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f08ad36b6bbbb7fc99e5aa9a06f0376", "text": "\"I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current \"\"market\"\" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's \"\"current value\"\", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, \"\"There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently.\"\" If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c12efadd7fee350ffa0bd773c7bcd8f", "text": "Unfortunately, there is no facility to do bulk transaction edits in GnuCash, so you are out of luck for your existing hundred. (I don't know whether there is a way to initially import a transaction as split.) However, once you have entered this split once, it can be used as a template for new transactions, using autocomplete or by entering it in the Scheduled Transaction Editor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bbda03f837541c501058d5c2e9831a5", "text": "Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e1634b86dc0379488255eb75820baf2", "text": "\"I recently needed to compute a better balance that let us pick and choose what to include in the computed sum without losing information, so I revisited this topic and I'm pleased to say that I've found a solution that works (at least for our data - you may have transactions that this code doesn't recognize, but you can always modify it to match). My solution was written natively for MS SQL Server 2008 or later, it uses a scalar UDF, a VIEW, and a windowed aggregate (SUM OVER (ORDER BY ...) which means it should be almost-syntax compatible with PostgreSQL. MySQL does not support OVER but you can perform a running-sum using a variable with arithmetic addition directly in the SELECT clause. Create a database table with this schema (feel free to exclude columns you're not interested in, such as Option1Name): Create a UNIQUE index on TxnId - you could use it as a primary-key, I suppose. You might be tempted to create a Foreign-Key relationship between ReferenceTxnId and TxnId, however this will fail if you enforce it: we have many transactions where ReferenceTxnId points to a Transaction that doesn't exist. This is usually in the case of [Type] = 'Web Accept Payment Received' AND [Status] = 'Canceled'. We also have some TransactionId values longer than 17 characters: some TransactionIds start with \"\"U-\"\" - all pending money requests, I suspect this indicates the transaction is \"\"unfinished\"\". Re-download your entire PayPal History CSV files so that you have the latest retroactive updates. Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!\"", "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": "0f8bff4246bf5e8c9e8ded7affa5caa8", "text": "\"Gnucash is first and foremost just a general ledger system. It tracks money in accounts, and lets you make transactions to transfer money between the accounts, but it has no inherent concept of things like taxes. This gives you a large amount of flexibility to organize your account hierarchy the way you want, but also means that it sometimes can take a while to figure out what account hierarchy you want. The idea is that you keep track of where you get money from (the Income accounts), what you have as a result (the Asset accounts), and then track what you spent the money on (the Expense accounts). It sounds like you primarily think of expenses as each being for a particular property, so I think you want to use that as the basis of your hierarchy. You probably want something like this (obviously I'm making up the specifics): Now, when running transaction reports or income/expense reports, you can filter to the accounts (and subaccounts) of each property to get a report specific to that property. You mention that you also sometimes want to run a report on \"\"all gas expenses, regardless of property\"\", and that's a bit more annoying to do. You can run the report, and when selecting accounts you have to select all the Gas accounts individually. It sounds like you're really looking for a way to have each transaction classified in some kind of two-axis system, but the way a general ledger works is that it's just a tree, so you need to pick just one \"\"primary\"\" axis to organize your accounts by.\"", "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": "1577e21bf4ad3391c4631197ed104014", "text": "I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "007befd38bcc226a277d23049f749057", "text": "At every moving/yard/garage sale I have ever seen only cash is accepted. While the use of electronic payments is growing the big problem is that it is hard to verify the exchange at the time the goods are changing hands. Unless you have a card reader attached to your phone, you can't use a credit or debit card. Unless you can verify that they did transfer the money electronically why would you let them walk away with your stuff? If you knew them you could accept a check, but there are risks with the checks bouncing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b1033620e57abedf226a7348b6797f25", "text": "\"When we say \"\"stock market,\"\" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations. You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus. The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple. So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen. However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff7f5e3e13a45c7f27610ba45e5bad81", "text": "Stock is a part ownership of a business. First there has to be a business that people want to own part of because they expect to make a profit from that ownership. Nobody is going to be interested if the business isn't worth anything. In other words: sure, you could try to start a movie production house to make this film and others... But unless you are already a major player AND already have a lot of money invested in the studio, forget it. This isn't GoFundMe or Kickstarter. Nobody is going to buy stock because they want a copy of the DVD that you promise will be available in two years' time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "23497b6f874834bdef745b5d043aa47b", "text": "\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d62775b79b4fdda675c738fcc1a3ab2", "text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "405279b2a7eb44babb0ab829e734ed52", "text": "\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0ed9ac0958f77d0eea4a9b671ece20a", "text": "You can contact the french agency for stock regulation and ask them : http://www.amf-france.org/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f18f367b4b8b041cb81a43befb98db03", "text": "I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.", "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": "73b60936102e9fb09b25d90ebf69c27a", "text": "Thanks for the response - ok so maybe the funds could be partially crowd-sourced and partially funded by an accredited investor? Also yes - having an experienced adviser and a plan in place to replace existing directors sound like good plot devices. There doesn't really have to be a limitation to banks, the idea comes from the protagonists being upset with the status quo of banking practices (foreclosures, fees, investing in weapons/warzones etc.) what would you suggest?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58508326ca40b024e9d896173d8c4094", "text": "Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f", "text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b97d4bf72e0dd05ddcdc5bb3403b6ae", "text": "There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "175e9c264dbfa41d9cdaf22b7ba50535", "text": "\"I guess there are accepted channels for this sort of thing, but I don't really understand why. Couldn't anyone sell them to anyone else at any time in any kind of market? I mean, if I had a friend who was talking the the IPO up, couldn't I have just said, \"\"Hey Fred, I'll sell you a Facebook share in two weeks time for thirty five bucks\"\" and be done with it? Do exchanges provide legal services? Is there a law that says you have to go through them? And even if you *did* have to go through them, why wouldn't multiple exchanges list them instead of just one, and why wouldn't an exchange start listing them from the minute the gun fired (or before)?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5da3dbbbf01c01fc8c409241323433b", "text": "\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd6c9487986c28f0e9fc0e9a7a2627c", "text": "I wouldn't think so. If you read the list of features listed on the page you referred to, notice: Track Stocks It looks like it is restricted to the major U.S. stock markets. No mention of India's NSE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18a0ebdd505f1bbcec3d7ff88ceaf59", "text": "\"No, assuming by \"\"public company\"\" you mean a corporation. The shareholder's individual liability is limited to their investment. Your shares can go to zero value, but that's the limit. EDIT In regard to the follow-up question in the comments: \"\"Are all companies in the stock market corporations?\"\" the answer is definitely \"\"no.\"\" I cannot say much about other countries, but the US markets have some entities which are known as \"\"master limited partnerships.\"\" These trade shares on the market by the usual rules, but if you buy you become a partner in the company rather than a shareholder. You still have limited liability in this case, but there will be differences, for example, in how you're are taxed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeb419cf864ea9fea1ab97dc09d2669", "text": "The idea of a stockmarket is multiple people betting on the value of an asset and then getting paid the difference between their bet and the real value of the asset. The goal being to keep the value of the stock as accurate as possible so capital is allocated to companies that will use it most efficiently. The reward for people making these bets is a portion of that capital. What you are suggesting is just a graph of the average happiness. The difficult part of turning this into a market, is being able to assign value to happiness, value that you can gain or lose by choice. Ironically, money is a indicator of happiness. When apple came out with the iPhone, people saw it and decided it would make them happier if they owned it creating demand. Investors noticed that people believed owning an iphone would make them happier so they bid up the price of AAPL stock. People are happier with their iPhones and investors benefitted from this happiness and got cash allowing them to spend money on things to increase their happiness. In order to extract happiness from the stock market a lot of other things come into play. A biotech company curing cancer would be a solution to something that drastically decreases happiness. Increasing alcohol sales might be a result of people trying to offset the sadness in the short term but in the long term it is a depressant and doesn't make you happy. An individual might be happier with an extra $10B but overall 1 million people getting $10k each would increase average happiness much more. But somebody like buffet can invest in companies that can generate way more happiness than just handing out cash. The happiness report is an annual report of happiness. Looking at these results next to the Gini coefficient (income inequality), and industry growth by country might start to give you an idea of what affects happiness. For instance in Africa income inequality could sky rocket while the stock market plummets and happiness could still increase because of public health investments made years ago, causing the infant mortality rate to plummet. If you want to think about this topic I recommend reading the great escape by Angus Deaton.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0e97da6a1332f123f9e670ed9c6443e", "text": "I wouldn't put too much stock in the guidance generically... it's more a measure of confidence in the company. When you listen to the earnings calls and start following a particular analyst, you'll understand where they come from when they kick out a number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78befdefe3293d15a9d7b64241702147", "text": "\"If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a \"\"fair price\"\". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0986ce939912bb6f607dfae68cc0f55", "text": "The time horizon applicable to the price target is always specified by the broker or bank which published the research report. You will find this information in the disclaimer, which is present on every research report. Usually it is 12 months, but some firms give 6 months price targets. However, you should never rely on the price target alone and always combine it with the following details (to name a few): Are the analyst's estimate above or below consensus estimates (or company guidance), did the analyst rise or lower its estimates. What is the rating on the stock (Buy, Sell, Hold...), when did he change his rating or price target. Does the firm do business with the company? (which may influence a bullish tone and optimistic price target).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83cdc3f29e96ce627f0bb5369a48319f", "text": "I don't think you can always assume a 12-month time horizon. Sometimes, the analyst's comments might provide some color on what kind of a time horizon they're thinking of, but it might be quite vague.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3e982ca5500dd5bdf4a1e4e52d5a65a", "text": "Most commonly, unless you read 'fair value target price,' an analyst's target price is a 12-month target price. Typically, there is a firm wide policy determining which time horizon to use. No analyst would provide an open ended target price, it doesn't make any sense (you discount cash flows to a certain period, adjust for inflation, etc). So there is always a time horizon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1d17cab7820e2dde13a9add87fa3ebb", "text": "Analysts normally (oxymoron here) gauge their targets on where the stock is currently and more importantly where it has been. Except for in the case of say a Dryships where it was a hundred dollar stock and is now in the single digits, it is safe to assume that Apple for instance was well over $ 700 and is now at $500, and that a price guidance of $ 580 is not that remarkable and a not so difficult level to strike. Kind of like a meteorologist; fifty percent chance of rain. Analysts and weathermen.Hard to lose your job when your never really wrong. Mr Zip, Over and outta here", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c189277f36f28c2d2c117dbfbf90c88c", "text": "\"Systemic and well know patterns in sales are priced in to the security. Typically companies with very cyclical earnings like this will issue guidance of earnings per share within a range. These expected earnings are priced in before the earnings are actually booked. If a company meets these expectations the stock will likely stay relatively flat. If the company misses this expectation, the stock, generally, will get slammed. This kind of Wall Street behavior typically mystifies media outlets when a company's stock declines after reporting a record high level of whatever metric. The record high is irrelevant if it misses the expectation. There is no crystal ball but if something is both well known and expected it's already been \"\"priced in.\"\" If the well known expected event doesn't occur, maybe it's a new normal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b9ae35eb128a2fcc6a93a1cd48c9cae", "text": "The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst. Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881", "text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c3de65dd0a09a5e8bfd62482094d7f", "text": "\"&gt; Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. &gt; If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. &gt; No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. &gt; Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. Only partly right. Sell side price targets are bullshit. Literally everyone knows this. The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else. [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3) &gt; If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (\"\"ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!\"\"). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are. &gt; Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6910613137c444c85fb4e476e25872dc", "text": "I have heard of this, but then the broker is short the shares if they weren't selling them out of inventory, so they still want to accumulate the shares or a hedge before EOD most likely - In that case it may not be the client themselves, but that demand is hitting the market at some point if there isn't sufficient selling volume. Whether or not the broker ends up getting all of them below VWAP is a cost of marketing for them, how they expect to reliably get real size below vwap is my question.", "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": "6e565dff7908157a23a049aca8e6aa30", "text": "No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.", "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": "30eb3402c667559e3f4a8a0ea9a19d2b", "text": "I don't believe most do it on purpose. Its a function of two things. 1) Markets are relatively efficient, so generating profits off of publicly available information is rare. 2) Analysts cannot ethically nor legally make recommendation based on material non-public information. That leaves them with using public information and building out s model to estimate earnings and therefore share price as best as possible. The problem is that estimating earnings is notoriously difficult. Every model is subject to garbage-in-garbage-out. All analysts start with some of the same basic assumptions and then tweak them based on their best guess. Take enough analysts and you've now replicated roughly what all investors are doing in the marketplace, meaning as a whole analysts won't be more accurate than the market. The only way to generate above market returns is for you to consistently pick the analyst with the right recommendation. If only it were so easy... Furthermore, analysts tend to make similar recommendations due to biases. Their initial model may have said 'buy' for GE, but they realize no other analysts have a buy rating on the stock. They're more likely to go back and revise their guesses to something more inline with their peers - its less risky to be with the crowd! TL;DR Security selection is hard and outperformance without MNP is unlikely over the long term. I am no longer in the industry. After 2.5yrs as an analyst and going through the CFA curriculum I've learned that there are VERY few opportunities for out performance, especially so on a risk adjusted basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a82bece8a7b6c04dce89b387fe72c88e", "text": "To get the probability of hitting a target price you need a little more math and an assumption about the expected return of your stock. First let's examine the parts of this expression. IV is the implied volatility of the option. That means it's the volatility of the underlying that is associated with the observed option price. As a practical matter, volatility is the standard deviation of returns, expressed in annualized terms. So if the monthly standard deviation is Y, then Y*SQRT(12) is the volatility. From the above you can see that IV*SQRT(DaysToExpire/356) de-annualizes the volatility to get back to a standard deviation. So you get an estimate of the expected standard deviation of the return between now and expiration. If you multiply this by the stock price, then you get what you have called X, which is the standard deviation of the dollars gained or lost between now and expiration. Denote the price change by A (so that the standard deviation of A is X). Note that we seek the expression for the probability of hitting a target level, Q, so mathematically we want 1 - Pr( A < Q - StockPrice) We do 1 minus the probability of being below this threshold because cumulative distribution functions always find the probability of being BELOW a threshold, not above. If you are using excel and assuming a mean of zero for returns, the probability of hitting or exceeding Q at expiration, then, is That's your answer for the probability of exceeding Q. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. You'd have to specify a criterion by which to judge it to know the answer. I'm sure more sophisticated methods exist that are more unbiased and have less error, but I think it's a fine first approximation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2897001493318a038f0ffc2ddc37a741", "text": "\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \"\"we'd expected to make this much\"\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \"\"get a feeling for\"\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \"\"good at time of release\"\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5d4816f3537f902bd6f075b31278133", "text": "Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d82c6862e9923c14d6fea3afb7cf9f6", "text": "\"&gt;Your line of reasoning is why you should have a timeline on a prediction. It's been, what, 12 years now of near constant assertions that huge inflation is just right around the corner. How long should we wait for it? Just long enough so that when it happens, you can claim that \"\"Shit! No one could have predicted THAT.\"\" &gt;to keep the inflation, which there is absolutely no sign of whatsoever Wow. The blindness. It HAS to be willful.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f2a3af6526fd4b4e1134e9c460ed9f6", "text": "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent -John Maynard Keynes The stocks could stagnate and trade in a thin range, or decline in value. You assume that your stocks will offer you ANY positive return for every month over 24 months. Just one month of negative returns puts you underwater. Thats whats wrong with it. Even if you identified any stock that has been up every month for a consecutive 24 months in the past, there is nothing that says it will be so in the future, and a broad market selloff will effect both indexes as well as individual stocks. Literally any adverse macroeconomic event in the next two years will put you underwater on your loan, no matter how much research you do on individual stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6ec4c6e33b1f072622f1c14cf686071", "text": "Paytrust seems to be the only game in town. We've changed banks several times over the last 15 years and I can tell you that using a bank's bill pay service locks you in, big time. I loved paytrust because I could make one change if we changed banks. If you're using a bank directly for your bills, the ides of recreating your payee list is daunting.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5938b4fa65cfd89f3ab79fcaa8841dc8", "text": "\"No. One of the key ideas behind a corporation is that an investor's liability is limited to the amount he invests, i.e. the amount of stock he buys. This is the primary reason why small businesses become corporations, even though one person owns 100% of the stock. Then if the business goes broke, he won't lose his house, retiretment fund, etc. He'll lose everything he had in the business, but at least there's a limit to it. (In some countries there are other ways to achieve the same results, like creating a \"\"limited liabililty company\"\", but that's another story.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18a0ebdd505f1bbcec3d7ff88ceaf59", "text": "\"No, assuming by \"\"public company\"\" you mean a corporation. The shareholder's individual liability is limited to their investment. Your shares can go to zero value, but that's the limit. EDIT In regard to the follow-up question in the comments: \"\"Are all companies in the stock market corporations?\"\" the answer is definitely \"\"no.\"\" I cannot say much about other countries, but the US markets have some entities which are known as \"\"master limited partnerships.\"\" These trade shares on the market by the usual rules, but if you buy you become a partner in the company rather than a shareholder. You still have limited liability in this case, but there will be differences, for example, in how you're are taxed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b000a8ad21e9fee49dcdf5d184e5642", "text": "The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e01f4693da28ecd3ef88fbcc7b66c1", "text": "\"Not normally, for a limited liability company anyway. In extreme circumstances a court may \"\"lift the veil\"\" of incorporation and treat shareholders as if they were partners. If you are an office bearer or a director that is found to have breached duties/responsibiities then that is another matter. Dim views can be taken of shonky arrangents for companies formed for activites not of a bona fide business nature too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89806c12767e3ceb53f7abd1658aa490", "text": "\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\"\"limited liability\"\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "994aa81696600e5c80d2c0239d115c77", "text": "In an open corporation scenario a stock holder may well be found liable. It's a very narrow and uncommon bunch of scenarios but it's well worth sharing. See the paragraph on open corporations in the following document: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/businessLaw/RightsOfShareholders/LiabilityOfShareholders.asp", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7f0b2035b9854c22bee04b280dbc32aa", "text": "You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first. Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too. It's not just corporations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f21f915d96f4657dbefa524ea5e1e0", "text": "Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f59adcc7b987d2178c95cf63fd19f0e", "text": "*sigh* So I guess you don't understand why they would care about no risk.... If the sub company fails, but had no debt, then the parent company only loses whatever money they invested in the sub company If the sub company fails and had debt: The parent company is responsible for those debts and must pay them if in the agreement with the bank the parent company is responsible. The parent company is not responsible for those debts if in the agreement with the banks, they did not agree to be collateral if the sub company went bankrupt. Not likely that a bank would agree to this though. They might even try to sue the parent company so they could get some reimbursement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871ee400fd4484f5018511b91dcb9298", "text": "&gt; If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/corporation-basics-29867.html There are exceptions to that of course. &gt; The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. This is false. Baring in mind that you can prove separation of assets and aren't doing anything illegal. &gt; Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. This is of course one of the exceptions.", "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": "977dfe0d410d1c7749d0b38f472c36f9", "text": "It would depend on the bounds of your hypothetical. If the investor group is blind to cost + has infinite money and the existing management is unwilling to comply at any cost, then management will destroy the company before the investor group can take it over. If the existing management follow rational choice theory; then an investment group with unlimited money could take over, hold a special meeting on it, etc. Shareholders can't force management to do anything per se, as management decisions that violate fiduciary duty aren't criminally liable unless the act itself is a crime. So if an investor group were to try a hostile takeover, and Twitter mgmt said we'll see you in hell; then they could just shut down every data center, sell off twitter.com, terminate all the employees, issue a billion new shares, issue every employee a million $0.01 strike warrants, etc. until there's nothing left to take over just to spite them. Defensive strategies get pretty creative and are highly amusing to watch if you don't have a dog in the fight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8268e9706128d119eab6a97dde210f0a", "text": "IANAL. In the UK, you (as a Director) would have obligations to minimise any tax liabilities under these two clauses: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/174 Although I can't see the CPS bringing any cases of criminal charge against over-payment of taxes. It wouldn't be unrealistic to have a scenario where shareholders of a failed enterprise sued a Director who was negligent in minimising tax liabilities. That said, I think the Starbucks strategy is flagrantly breaching the intent of the law, if not the letter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ebfb0ff79a08dd8776c2fb71f1a5123", "text": "In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f607bca64522b8754268ef2dbe932a", "text": "Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7238a79b7b4178cf71c34c008b89d9d", "text": "You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.", "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": "0b68acfc83ae9ef8c7430c5cd4ceedc3", "text": "\"Generally \"\"default\"\" means that the company cannot pay off their debts, and since debt holders get paid before equity holders, their equity would be effectively worthless. That said, companies can emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) and retain equity value, but it is rare. Most times, stocks are de-listed or frozen on stock exchanges, and company's reorganization plan will cancel all existing equity shares, instead focusing all of their attention on paying back as much debt as possible. If the company issues new equity after reorganizing, it might provide a way for holders of the original equity to exchange their shares for the new equity, but it is rare, and the value is usually significantly less that the value of the original equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebf7f2ffdd88a794594aa313b48eb2d1", "text": "yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a41f75249c1d9d408263920982a312c", "text": "\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52d826b925842aa604e0b295fcd54608", "text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7604afb3ccde436812d42a15983537ec", "text": "A common (and important) measure of a stock's value is the price/earnings ratio, so an increase in earnings will normally cause the stock price to increase. However, the price of the stock is based on a guess of the value of the company some time (6 months?) in the future. So an increase in earnings today probably makes a higher earnings more likely in the future, and puts upward pressure on the price of the stock. There are a lot of other factors in stock prices, such as publicity, dividends, revenue, trends, company stability, and company history. Earnings is a very important factor, but not the only factor determine the value (and so stock price) of a company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "649ef789d568c6c872bfffbf1b6f17af", "text": "Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe185e1d074f6ebf2fe638058bf87b2", "text": "Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1", "text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1c2620e960c66a3465df030519f8644", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc616ead23979dbfb6b2f964398e6d1", "text": "In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.", "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": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f", "text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.", "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": "bd59a0d6be04b9e7ff8cc04436d98108", "text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2179472f1459f1f7ec70b6aac3a9d3be", "text": "You are right that Facebook really doesn't get impacted as they got their $38. However it would make it slightly more difficult for Facebook to raise more money in future as large investors would be more cautious. This can keep the price lowers than it actually needs to be. Quite a few companies try to list the IPO at lower price so that it keeps going up and have more positive effect overall there by making it easier for future borrowings. See related question Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a025d389c97e33531f1be1392b2444c3", "text": "\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5607bef00056a09a17bce283bef755b", "text": "Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.", "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": "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": "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": "fcba21aa3c74e9db304b5f7ec2423be7", "text": "It is unlikely that buying 100 shares will have any effect on a stock's price, unless the stock's average trading volume is incredibly low. That being said, no matter how many share you buy, there's no way to know what the impact on the price will be, because that's only one factor in how shares are priced. If anyone could figure out the answer to your question then they'd be extremely rich, because they'd simply watch for big share trades and then buy those stocks on the way up. The market makers who actually execute the trades are the ones who set the prices, and most stocks have multiple market makers trading the stock, so the bid/ask you see is the highest bid and lowest ask. The market makers set the price based on what the trend of the stock is. If, for instance, there's a large number of sell orders against a stock, the market makers will start dropping the bid prices as they fill execution orders, and as they see buy orders increase, they'll raise ask prices as they fill execution orders. The market makers earn the difference between what they paid to buy someone's stock who was selling and what they get from someone else who buys it. This is a simplified explanation, so pro traders, don't beat me up! (grin) So, basically, it takes quite a bit of share volume in one direction or another to affect a stock's price. I can guarantee a 100-share trade wouldn't even be noticed by market makers. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0f4a15ea7b5f4c0e208feb408df841", "text": "\"I have some experience with this. I have had fraudulent charges appear on my credit card statement and had to change my card number several times, despite (I believe) no carelessness on my part. Every time that this has happened, I have never lost a penny due to fraud on my credit card. The bank has ultimately removed the fraudulent charges in every instance. Given this, you'd think the consumer doesn't need to worry about this at all. But it seems like credit card companies beg to differ. Yes, because although I have never lost a penny to fraud, the bank (or the merchant) loses money every time it happens. The $0 liability protects you; the card security measures protect the bank. But... why should a consumer ever bother worrying about these in the first place, when he knows he legally can't be held responsible for fraudulent charges? What exactly is this new \"\"peace of mind\"\" that he supposedly gets by (say) using features like virtual account numbers that he doesn't already have? Although you shouldn't end up out any money when this happens, it is an inconvenience. The bank will cancel your card and issue you a new number. It may take a few days for you to receive your new card. If you have another card to use, this isn't a big deal. If you are out of state the day before you need to check out of a hotel and return a rental car with no backup credit card (as I have been), it is a big deal. (In my case, I had to have the credit card company talk to the hotel to give them the new card number, and they were able to overnight me a new credit card so I could get home. I now make sure I carry a backup credit card.) Should a consumer put any effort into worrying about this at all? (Why?) In my opinion, it makes sense to be careful what you do with your credit card number, if only to avoid the inconvenience. Don't type your credit card number into an e-mail message, for example, and only use it on websites that you trust. That having been said, it is not worth it to be paranoid about it, either. No matter how careful you are, eventually you will probably use it at a store that gets hacked, or your card will get skimmed somewhere, and you'll need to get a new credit card number. The best way to protect yourself is to make sure that you go over your credit card statement each month and look for any fraudulent charges that the bank didn't catch.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b1ebfc2c86a395f575eb6475a8596391", "text": "\"StasM, It's taken a while but many banks offer tokens - although they tend to limit the accounts for which they will be issued. All of the following issue tokens, but there are many more: CitiBank JP Morgan Union Bank Wells Fargo Callaway Bank Wachovia Bank of North Dakota The River Bank of Wisconsin Metcalf Bank, Kansas Stonebridge Bank In 2005 federal regulators stipulated that banks needed to get better with security for online banking customers, but they did not endorse a particular technology. Tokens (aka fobs) were endorsed. The news was negatively received by the banks because putting more steps in the way of a customer drives the customer away. See this 2005 report for more info: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2005-11-02-cybercrime-prevention_x.htm My guess is a tipping point was reached since then, where customers became savvy of the risks, and that the \"\"extra steps\"\" became less an issue than the \"\"extra security\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2f94e4f4a3b3116dbe2dd98d409f72", "text": "There are very few banks which offer two-factor authentication. Part of the reason is cost. Providing a token to every account-holder is expensive, not just in the device or system, but in providing support and assistance to the millions of people who won't have the faintest idea how it works and complain that they no longer have access to their accounts. That said, it is sometimes available on request for personal accounts and many banks require it for their business clients. My HSBC Business account comes with two-factor as default and it works extremely well. There is also the pseudo-two-factor security offered by Visa and MasterCard (3-D secure) which performs a similar function.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c3c5e2804a3f4ff19c1a1293a007deb", "text": "E*Trade offers banking services, and will provide you with a security token free if you have sufficient assets there ($50,000). Otherwise they'll charge you a $25 fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ec95e7608405e25bee1e62d62ef0dc", "text": "Bank of America supports two-factor authentication using SMS messages, similar to PayPal. You can enable the feature from Online Banking under Customer Service -> SafePass Settings. Update: Over the weekend of July 28th, 2012, the SafePass control on the authentication page was updated to simple HTML + JavaScript instead of Flash, so that it is now possible to login from Safari on iOS, among others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42c72db8ab6854be3d6437c02d71e83a", "text": "Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41c9f182f2aa4a77e16a1f6c6a69eb4", "text": "USAA does - that's my bank. Wells Fargo tries to determine whether the online activity is a risk; if it is, they'll require an SMS code or phoned code be entered. You can get a fairly definitive list of online companies at twofactorauth.org.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fcea2b8b571f1859139d2c628ccf500a", "text": "I have USAA and the home loan process was a nightmare. My account was also compromised but I caught it immediately because they sent me an alert of a large sum of money being transferred to my checking account, so there is that. I just found out that Navy Federal finally accepts Army veterans (it hadn't up until a couple of years ago) so I have an account with them just so I can get different loan options and credit card rates. Navy Federal has minimums for getting ATM refunds while USAA doesn't, so for now I just have a savings account with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31fc9c275253a8a25056530c6bdd76d5", "text": "I read an article where this website did an interview with them and concluded its very sketchy and possibly illegal. They refused to give out their FDIC number and they got the high interest rate by selling personal customer information to third parties", "title": "" }, { "docid": "807a92ad542d215ad05806d41571e244", "text": "When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd5a1b84940c079a7c2f75cafa6f8904", "text": "Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44309cd550236d0b4bb90aa00c1efe11", "text": "I use online banking and bill pay for all accounts where I can control when and how much is paid, where I push the funds out. The bills from those companies that want to be allowed to reach into my account and pull money automatically (e.g. my Chase mortgage) I simply will not enroll - they get a paper check in the mail. There is no way I am giving these cocksucker criminals *permission* to take money out of my accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcc07d2a1ecf891d4e6b74729d40f57", "text": "In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well. They have excellent customer service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f27667221cca30f0a98511cc22f04d9", "text": "I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love 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. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1e66be7a0e8c8af69736054273ebf8", "text": "I'm working on some banking-related research, and have run into a problem: financial data switches between using RSSDIDs and FDIC certs to identify individual banks. I'm looking for an efficient way to convert between ID types or include both, as I am merging large financial data sets that each use different ID types. I have found [this](https://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/searchform.aspx), which allows for conversion one-by-one. However, I'm working with a very large set of bank data, and would really appreciate a more efficient way to do this. Does anyone know of a data set that matches certs to RSSDIDs? edit: just in case someone else needs it, the call report bulk downloads on the ffiec site have both the CERTs and RSSDIDs, so you can use those.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc7abd96a4232b1049975ebf8aa602f", "text": "Capital One 360. No minimums balance, no fees. Everything's online. Make deposits using an app or an image of the check. ATMs are free almost everywhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38a1e558bd7d0f7595a41143e9be2a8f", "text": "Personal finance startup BillGuard has raised $10 million in second-round financing, and it’s using it to expand its service that helps protect accounts from fraudulent activity, the company said Tuesday. BillGuard protects users by registering their credit and debit cards and keeping an eye out for questionable and fraudulent charges. The company uses a crowdsourced approach to identifying unauthorized charges, by not only providing its own detection but also incorporating users’ billing complaints to track and analyze payments. BillGuard’s big second round of funding comes from a powerhouse group, including Khosla Ventures, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund. “At Khosla Ventures we love entrepreneurs who dare to tackle large problems with disruptive, bottom-up methods,” said Vinod Khosla, founding partner of Khosla Ventures, in a statement. At present, BillGuard is free to use for anyone who wants to sign up. So how is it going to make money? The company is talking to large banks that could act as partners and incorporate BillGuard on a per-customer basis for a small fee. BillGuard is also exploring the idea of a merchant certification program that would let merchants have access to some its data, and follow up with customers who end up with fraudulent or questionable charges. New York-based BillGuard previously raised $3 million in its first round of funding from Bessemer Venture Partners and IA Ventures. BillGuard made its public debut on stage at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in May 2011.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbb67d40032f4f89b5d23f90cb3caa17", "text": "I've had good experiences with a regional bank. All the perks of Wells but without the bullshit fees (except ATMs unfortunately but I just get cash back in the rare instance that a card / my phone won't cut it).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35521eafb32f55645fbcfd314a99e5f0", "text": "While it's wise, easier and safer to check your transactions online a few times a month, I opt to receive and file paper statements as a hard copy back up of account history. Any reconciliation I perform is a quick glance to make sure the numbers sound right. It's probably a small waste of time and space, but it settles some of my paranoia (due to my training as a computer engineer) about failure of electronic banking systems. If someone tampers with bank records or a SAN explodes and wipes out a bunch of account data, then I will have years worth of paper statements to back up my numbers. Having years worth of statements printed on the banks stationary will have better credibility in court than a .pdf or printout thereof that could have been doctored, in case I ever needed to take my bank to court. A little piece of mind for the price of a letter opener, a square foot file box and a couple of minutes a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51fc55d0608b3e0ebf101e5489f185cb", "text": "\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b404a0a65abf25390f0c7079320447eb", "text": "Australia has a massive housing bubble (one of the last in the world to pop), no productivity growth (lots of investment in mining which hasn't yet payed off, though we'll do well if commodities pick up), and relies on China and India buying lots of coal and steel at historically high prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "86e438b21751aec4fe7f59a7bf147172", "text": "\"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \"\"penny stock\"\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a56976424c16c7b52f1a6b079e405eac", "text": "Randomly selected stocks would probably become worthless at a similar rate of all businesses going out of business do. I'm not sure why you'd randomly select a stock though. Stocks in the S&P500 (or other similar index), or large-cap stocks probably become worthless at a much lower rate.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "08cef17a1495f073999a886d3a26573c", "text": "This has only been true over the past 10 years or so as asset classes have started to move in tandem and prices have been driven by central banks instead of fundamentals. Historically, this is abnormal. Your assertion has recency bias.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3564c1649053ad2f0f001e03b5135072", "text": "Pretty sure the null hypothesis here is that trading equities at a high frequency is a zero sum game. The is no gain that isn't someone else's loss. No goods are created, no knowledge is gained, no value is produced. Note, I didn't say value is destroyed either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abc2f84718703e157926e5b001527a6f", "text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "362edb20d7add179442507d6e995c2da", "text": "Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da7807b82f18388c78a07d60511260", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88c1bea5105717ac6d901d758a6518b0", "text": "Cute, but 100 years of market history will show you the fundamentals have persisted for a reason. Every industry in history has tried to pull this “but this is different” thing off (oil, gold, semiconductors) and they have ALL been brought to reality in time. There is no reason to think today is any different. There will be recessions again, there will be market crashes again, either tomorrow or 5 years from now. It always levels out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87fd0ffbacf2f9c408959b74bf24807b", "text": "I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d3786a4e8a8966bf704974b96a52ffa", "text": "\"Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other \"\"fad\"\" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of \"\"Bobs\"\" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by \"\"Steve's\"\" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae2ad702ebc1440fa3a7f006e568fe8", "text": "\"The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"\"inevitable\"\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b96748ba63d6294fc4cc1b466503e559", "text": "So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case.", "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": "3acf275d77964f6b617beee49dcc0d64", "text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a0041d3be74b8476abfc38b7f35e3bc", "text": "It does when you argue that a single factor is causing the price chart to move a certain way. If they start to think it's perhaps more complicated than that, then yes, it breaks down quickly, which was precisely my point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e16bf72b7e84e7aac3a2eb57a804450", "text": "\"This falls under value investing, and value investing has only recently picked up study by academia, say, at the turn of the millennium; therefore, there isn't much rigorous on value investing in academia, but it has started. However, we can describe valuations: In short, valuations are randomly distributed in a log-Variance Gamma fashion with some reason & nonsense mixed in. You can check for yourself on finviz. You can basically download the entire US market and then some, with many financial and technical characteristics all in one spreadsheet. Re Fisher: He was tied for the best monetary economist of the 20th century and created the best price index, but as for stocks, he said this famous quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: \"\"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.\"\" - Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929 EDIT Value investing has almost always been ignored by academia. Irving Fisher and other proponents of it before it was codified by Graham in the mid 20th century certainly didn't help with comments like the above. It was almost always believed that it was a sucker's game, \"\"the bigger sucker\"\" game to be more precise because value investors get destroyed during recession/collapses. So even though a recessionless economy would allow value investors and everyone never to suffer spontaneous collapses, value investors are looked down upon by academia because of the inevitable yet nearly always transitory collapse. This expresses that sentiment perfectly. It didn't help that Benjamin Graham didn't care about money so never reached the heights of Buffett who frequently alternates with Bill Gates as the richest person on the planet. Buffett has given much credibility, and academia finally caught on around in 2000 or so after he was proven right about a pending tech collapse that nearly no one believed would happen; at least, that's where I begin seeing papers being published delving into value concepts. If one looks harder, academia's even taken the torch and discovered some very useful tools. Yes, investment firms and fellow value investors kept up the information publishing, but they are not academics. The days of professors throwing darts at the stock listings and beating active managers despite most active managers losing to the market anyways really held back this side of academia until Buffett entered the fray and embarrassed them all with his club's performance, culminating in the Superinvestors article which is still relatively ignored. Before that, it was the obsession with beta, the ratio of a security's variance to its covariance to the market, a now abandoned theory because it has been utterly discredited; the popularizers of beta have humorously embraced the P/B, not giving the satisfaction to Buffet by spurning the P/E. Tiny technology firms receive ridiculous valuations because a long-surviving tiny tech firm usually doesn't stay small for long thus will grow at huge rates. This is why any solvent and many insolvent tech firms receive large valuations: risk-adjusted, they should pay out huge on average. Still, most fall by the wayside dead, and those 100 P/S valuations quickly crumble. Valuations are influenced by growth. One can see this expressed more easily with a growing perpetuity: Where P is price, i is income, r is the rate of return, and g is the growth rate of i. Rearranging, r looks like: Here, one can see that a higher P relative to i will dull the expected rate of return while a higher g will boost it. It's fun for us value investor/traders to say that the market is totally inefficient. That's a stretch. It's not perfectly inefficient, but it's efficient. Valuations are clustered very tightly around the median, but there are mistakes that even us little guys can exploit and teach the smart money a lesson or two. If one were to look at a distribution of rs, one'd see that they're even more tightly packed. So while it looks like P/Es are all over the place industry to industry, rs are much more well clustered. Tech, finance, and discretionaries frequently have higher growth rates so higher P/Es yet average rs. Utilities and non-discretionaries have lower growth rates so lower P/Es yet average rs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8269934f559d54722a958a104b6e191d", "text": "The interest rate will probably be better for your primary residency, however the risk is higher too. In the event you can't pay it off - you probably would rather lose the second home and not the primary home. Re the tax benefit - it will be attached to the rental you're buying, since that's what the loan is for. However, if you have a HELOC on your primary residency, you can deduct interest on up to $100K on your Schedule A regardless of what you're doing with the money. This can be useful if the rental is losing money and you don't want to accumulate the interest deduction as passive loss.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c9a3c0c2284554ce69d0c8db28dcfdcc", "text": "\"Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property. Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of \"\"If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]\"\". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2580c4ab2ca485905e4195cd4748c6c2", "text": "Grade 'Eh' Bacon answers it well, the issue is risk. To explain further, when a bank issues a loan, that loan comes with certain legal rights. If the bank decided to partner with a construction company, many of those rights to collect would be gone. Debt is treated differently than equity in the legal system. Banks are good at debt, investors are good at equity. We also oversimplify it by asking why banks don't prefer equity to debt. Some investment banks also like to deal in equity, so it's probably an inaccurate assumption that you start with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f07714b5631bbd2a81f26cbd7e5f6a41", "text": "\"The most succinct answer is \"\"Banks are in the Money business\"\". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. \"\"Money\"\" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e907d422e9d3d798ba1f276f896040e", "text": "\"Assumption - you live in a country like Australia, which has \"\"recourse\"\" mortgages. If you buy the apartment and take out a mortgage, the bank doesn't care too much if your apartment gets built or not. If the construction fails, you still owe the bank the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1aa1ce6aba2c9edee99881da6cbb51b", "text": "Why should a bank get into construction specifically? Lots of business opportunities require capital. Conceivably banks could build factories, develop consumer electronics, complete with SpaceX, etc. It's all capital in, profits out, with varying levels of risk and returns. There's nothing special about constructing apartments. The reason banks don't run businesses is because there are plenty of private firms that compete with each other for business. What's the chance that a bank, with all its bureaucracy, can deliver cheaper apartments than an apartment developer? Pretty low in fact, and that's why they would rather lend to an apartment developer rather than building the apartments themselves. Banks are in the business of competing with other banks. The main work they do is to sort out good investments from poor ones. And if they can do that just a bit more efficiently than their competitors, they make big bucks. For example, it might only take a few additional hours to better vet a deal worth millions. Whereas with an apartment building, you wouldn't be able to make that amount of money per hour even if the materials and labor cost you nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8d7639e01902ca28754028bcf23657d", "text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc718afd9f8edd15151243165c6c5c33", "text": "Banks should be risk averse by default. They make loans to people and businesses after measuring their ability to repay. After they approve a big project loan like an apartment building, they don't give all the money to the builders upfront. They give money as progress is made and they make sure the funds are not being used inappropriately. There's no reason they couldn't do all this while owning the project, but that would also open them to lawsuits later on if anything wasn't built to code. By keeping the project at arm's length, they avoid future liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4af29a241248699704bf23cf1c31c9ea", "text": "The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.", "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": "bd175da814341c7ca030ec8ac91582b9", "text": "\"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \"\"all cash,\"\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \"\"renter.\"\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "993f127732c2a230ca27b60f7f4b927e", "text": "It's because financing can fall through, and then the time between offer and closing is wasted. Often buyers will include preapprovals and other evidence of financing eligibility with their offer for this reason.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f47b6796e15fb0f25e9c9892d4f783a", "text": "\"Economy of scale on one side versus \"\"person monetizing an illliquid asset\"\" on the other. Most multifamily rental buildings are owned by professional real estate investors (as well as individuals growing an empire to become a professional real estate investor whom I will count in this group). The rental difference between a 2000 Sq foot two bedroom apartment and 2000 Sq foot two bedroom standalone house is not large. The construction cost per square foot for a standalone house is higher than for a multifamily building (of similar height and materials). Maintenance calls, landscaping, and new roofs, dealing with permits and inspections, etc are much more efficient with multifamily properties. On the supply side, most single family rentals tend to be the nonprofessional single property owner because they happen to already own the place, and for one reason or another a. Don't want to sell and b. Want to gain cash flow on the asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104851bebfcd64861002248134924b53", "text": "The finance sector is comprised of such enterprises as banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate. It is traditionally contrasted with what has been called the 'real economy' because funds created and utilized in this sector produce neither goods, services or fixed capital. The unproductive nature of transactions can easily be seen in such things as real estate. When a company undertakes to build a house or whatever its input goes directly to the labor and goods necessary for such a project. At its worst the financial sector mobilizes funds not just for production but for simple acquisition. Should a company raise the funds to buy an already existing building or the mortgage on same quite obviously nothing is produced. Same building on day one as when it was owned by another. That, of course, is an extreme example as are corporate takeovers via private equity. In that case the efforts of the financial sector are not just non-productive but are often in fact ''anti-productive'' as they destroy or prevent the use of real factors of production. This 'anti-productive' action was demonstrated on a massive global scale during the last financial crisis. The basically parasitic nature of the financial sector isn't always so blatant. There are some that argue that its 'services' can be valuable to the real economy. Perhaps, but that has to be determined on a case by case examination **and** while keeping the idea ''is there a better way to do this** in one's mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2b74b5cd2be5c6afc1c3fe45820c19c", "text": "\"The current mortgaged owner would typically not have the right to sell any portion of the house without approval from the bank. The bank doesn't \"\"own\"\" the house through the mortgage, but they do have a series of rights that, in some cases, look similar to ownership. Remember that a mortgage is just a loan that uses a house as collateral, to reduce the risk to the lender in the event of default. If it was just a personal loan, without collateral, then there would be a much higher risk of default (and therefore the interest rate would be closer to 20% than 2%). But because the loan was taken with collateral, that collateral can't be sold without the bank's permission. If the bank allowed this to happen, then one risk would be exactly as you say - that the mortgagee stops paying the bank, and the bank no longer is able to recover the full value of the loan on selling the remaining 50% of the house owed as collateral.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442a363cb496ed3562c1c8194e56956c", "text": "\"People borrow money all the time to buy a house. Banks will lend money on one (up to 80%, sometimes more), because they consider it an \"\"investment.\"\" If you own a large company and want to expand, a bank or bond issuer will first look at what you plan to do with the money, like build new factories, or whatever. Based on their experience, they may judge that you will earn enough money to pay them back. If you don't, they may \"\"repossess\"\" your factories and sell them to someone who can pay. As protection, you may be asked to \"\"mortgage\"\" your existing company to protect the lenders of the new money. If you don't pay back the money, the lenders get not only your new \"\"factories\"\" but also your existing company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beef0bceb0f19dfb4a5ce60e4934fd0a", "text": "\"A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws). As such, the bank isn't an \"\"investor\"\" in your house; it simply is lending you money with the property as collateral. So, it doesn't get any share of the profit. As long as you sell the house on your own, for more than you owe, most of the time in the US you will get about 92-94% of the sale price back, minus whatever you owe on the house. The 6-8% you don't get will go to the realtors as commission (unless you sell by owner and don't sell to someone with a buyer's agent), and to pay some of the costs of the sale (how much of those you pay depends on the deal you make with the buyer, but it's common to pay some of them in some areas). You also will owe taxes (potentially). You then pay the bank back from that amount. As such, in your example, let's say Bob owes $50k on his house, and sells it with a realtor for $150k. He gets $150k-0.06*150k = 141k after commission. He then hands the bank a check for the current payoff of the loan: that amount is usually slightly higher than the remaining principal, because you owe the interest that's accrued between [last payment you made] and [day of sale]. Let's say this is a 6% loan, which works out to around 0.5% per month, and it's been half a month since his last payment, so he owes another 0.25%, or another $125. Some mortgages also may have prepayment penalties (check your note). In this case there isn't a penalty, so the bank gets $50,125 from the sale. Usually, the bank would get that immediately at closing - ie, he doesn't get the full $141k or $150k and then write a check, instead the title/closing company gets that amount, and gives the $9k to the realtors, the $50,125 to the bank, and the remaining $90,875 to him. Don't forget he may also owe income taxes, and sometimes other local taxes, on the profit on the sale. In this case the IRS wouldn't get anything (as it's under $250k), assuming it's a primary residence, but keep that in mind. Also - in the case of a foreclosure, the bank will get some extra money to pay for the costs it incurred in foreclosing on and selling the house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f398ad2294afdfaf8c2e0f39a65b251", "text": "The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d", "text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93a09e9dfa2c54463cae53fc1b3fb9c3", "text": "Correct. The developers know that and the Fed will still willingly back all these mortgages and the Government is backing all the private insurers who also know their risk is too great in these areas. Private insurers would never insure these homes without the Government backing them. It is moral hazard gone wild.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6278cee56a5973aae9cec2d8328fb568", "text": "\"Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your \"\"equity\"\" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it.\"", "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": "74ea18e3d9909a7d8434a44d78226db5", "text": "Failing some answers to my comment, I am going to make some assumptions: Based upon a quick review of this article I'd probably be in the Russell 2000 Value Index Fund (IWN). Quite simply it gives you broad market exposure so you can be diversified by purchasing one fund. One of the key success factors is starting, not if you pick the best fund at the onset. I can recall, 20 years ago being amazed (and it was quite a feat) at someone who was able to invest $400 per month. These days that won't get you to the ROTH maximum and smart 20 somethings are doing just that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf437514ade59fb8744135e52adbfb3", "text": "No. The US manufactures more goods than any other country, and only China is close. However, instead of making clothes, the US makes higher value items, like medical equipment. The impression that manufacturing is dead in the US is because of this, and because manufacturing has become highly automated, so there are far fewer manufacturing jobs than there were in the past.", "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": "22d688f1402e8f49f666d9a6935b39a0", "text": "The volatility measures how fast the stock moves, not how much. So you need to know the period during which that change occurred. Then the volatility naturally is higher the faster is the change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589e8e9ab52c413eb5b16076903fd7a3", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47e1b1d01bb31194a38b0bdea0b8fbe0", "text": "\"The charts on nasdaq.com are log based, if you look closely you can see that the spacing between evenly incremented prices is tighter at the top of the chart and wider at the bottom. It's easiest to see on a stock with a wide price range using candlestick where you can clearly see the grid. I'm also not seeing the \"\"absurdism\"\" you indicate when I look at google finance with the settings ticked to use log on the price axis. I see what I'd expect which is basically a given vertical differential on the price axis representing the same percentage change in price no matter where it is located. For example if I look at GOOG from the earliest date they have (Aug 20 2004) to a nice high point (dec 7 2007) I see a cart where the gap from the the bottom of the chart (seems to be right around 100) to the 200 point, (a 100% increase) is the same as from 200 to 400 (a 100% increase) is the same as 400 to 800 (a 100# increase) That's exactly what I expect from a 'log' chart on a financial site, each relative move up or down of the same distance, represents the same relative change in value. So I'm having difficulty understanding what your complaint is. (note: I'm using chrome, which is the browser I'd expect to work best with any google website. results with other browsers could of course vary) If you want to do some other wacky math with the axis then I humbly suggest that something like Excel is your friend. Goto the charts at nasdaq.com get the chart displaying the period you care about, click the chart to display the unlying data, there will be an option to download the data. cram it into excel and go wild as you want with charting it out. e.g. note that step 2 links to client side javascript, so you will need javascript enabled, if you are running something like noscript, disable it for this site. Also since the data opens in a new window, you may also need to enabled 'popups' for the site. (and yes, I sometimes get an annoying news alert advert popup and have to close it when the chart first appears.. oh well it pays the rent and nasdaq is not charging you so for access so such is the price for a free site. )\"", "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": "40e19a42d0c1030422b12eaa08ea15d4", "text": "The shortest-hand yet most reliable metric is daily volume / total shares outstanding. A security with a high turnover rate will be more efficient than a lower one, ceteris paribus. The practical impacts are tighter spread and lower average percentage change between trades. A security with a spread of 0% and an average change of 0% between trades is perfectly efficient.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e68f8e0e96e2216f94cc5d9bcecc01a", "text": "\"Here's the slippage I was talking about - - - this is when I was trading DXO or around that time. the ultra shares----interesting read at least. \"\"Based on data from October 22, 2008 to January 26, 2009, the S&amp;P 500 had a daily standard deviation of 3.62%. If you were to invest in SDS, an UltraShort ETF which has the S&amp;P 500 as its underlying index, and were to hold it for a year, you should expect to lose between 34% and 74% of your money, if the S&amp;P 500 is flat for that period. This assumes that there are no transaction costs, and that the expense ratio is 0% (in fact, it's 0.91%.) My experiment also assumed that daily stock market returns follow a normal distribution. In fact, the the distribution of daily stock market returns is leptokurtotic (it has fat tails.) According to my mathematical intuition (the Ph.D. is in math, in case you were curious,) if I had performed the experiment with a leptokurtotic distribution, the losses would have been larger. Obviously, this could be checked, but the results are bad enough as it is.\"\" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/ultrapromises_fall_short.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a1af1f518ca2fda333f2639837459d9", "text": "PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc8fc7455dd37b3f2c63dd9bc2c955fc", "text": "\"How accurate is Implied Volatility in predicting future moves? How would you measure this? If the implied volatility says that there's a 1% chance that a stock will double, and it doubles, was it \"\"right\"\"? You could also say that it says there's a 99% change that it doesn't double, so was it \"\"wrong\"\"? What you could measure is the variance of daily returns over a time period, and see how well that compares to implied volatility, but there's no way to compare IV with the absolute price movement. If a stock goes up 0.01 each day, then the variance is 0 (the daily returns are the same each day), but over 250 the stock would go up $2.50.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62", "text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"", "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": "6657c05898ceb7473983e062b054aa66", "text": "\"Thanks! Do you know how to calculate the coefficients from this part?: \"\"The difference between the one-year rate and the spread coefficients represents the response to a change in the one-year rate. As a result, the coefficient on the one-year rate and the difference in the coefficients on the one-year rate and spread should be positive if community banks, on average, are asset sensitive and negative if they are liability sensitive. The coefficient on the spread should be positive because an increase in long-term rates should increase net interest income for both asset-sensitive and liability-sensitive banks.\"\" The one-year treasury yield is 1.38% and the ten-year rate is 2.30%. I would greatly appreciate it if you have the time!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c600f9ea131c2cbd2362197798ffc51f", "text": "This is a really easy problem. If you're genuinely having trouble, maybe don't be a finance major? All you need to do is know the formulas for the ratios and plug in the variables. Simple and clean. However, if you're lazy and trying to get free answers off of reddit, then you could have saved the time you took to post this question and actually do the problem. You probably would have gotten the answer all by yourself without much help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e080f52dc5ab00a2c1dee3097206fc9", "text": "Don´t forget that changing volatility will have an impact on the time value too! So at times it can happen that your time value is increasing instead of decreasing, if the underlying (market) volatility moves up strongly. Look for articles on option greeks, and how they are interdependent. Some are well explaining in simple language.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "98634ad20792e08f87659493195a9884", "text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b932b0d181fe36d3fdcc9450f3209b67", "text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3b31f6ff09ba86956fe3909c37414b4", "text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "005ae68f6b6c32c422f0c8118e17c5a7", "text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2136d2107d301d8ce67bde3c860700d0", "text": "\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\"", "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": "98e3bfb692726eb17aedb4ba794c9489", "text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2f7ad0541af31f8d8438cfa6e0f8f23", "text": "In less than two decades, more than half of all publicly traded companies have disappeared. There were 7,355 U.S. stocks in November 1997, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. Nowadays, there are fewer than 3,600. A close look at the data helps explain why stock pickers have been underperforming. And the shrinking number of companies should make all investors more skeptical about the market-beating claims of recently trendy strategies. Back in November 1997, there were more than 2,500 small stocks and nearly 4,000 tiny “microcap” stocks, according to CRSP. At the end of 2016, fewer than 1,200 small and just under 1,900 microcap stocks were left. Most of those companies melted away between 2000 and 2012, but the numbers so far show no signs of recovering. Several factors explain the shrinking number of stocks, analysts say, including the regulatory red tape that discourages smaller companies from going and staying public; the flood of venture-capital funding that enables young companies to stay private longer; and the rise of private-equity funds, whose buyouts take shares off the public market. For stock pickers, differentiating among the remaining choices is “an even harder game” than it was when the market consisted of twice as many companies, says Michael Mauboussin, an investment strategist at Credit Suisse in New York who wrote a report this spring titled “The Incredible Shrinking Universe of Stocks.” That’s because the surviving companies tend to be “fewer, bigger, older, more profitable and easier to analyze,” he says — making stock picking much more competitive. Consider small-stock funds. Often, they compare themselves to the Russell 2000, an index of the U.S. stocks ranked 1,001 through 3,000 by total market value. “Twenty years ago, there were over 4,000 stocks smaller” than the inclusion cutoff for the Russell 2000, says Lubos Pastor, a finance professor at the University of Chicago. “That number is down to less than 1,000 today.” So fund managers have far fewer stocks to choose from if they venture outside the index — the very area where the best bargains might be found. More money chasing fewer stocks could lead some fund managers to buy indiscriminately, regardless of value. Eric Cinnamond is a veteran portfolio manager with a solid record of investing in small stocks. Last year, he took the drastic step of shutting down his roughly $400 million mutual fund, Aston/River Road Independent Value, and giving his investors their money back. “Prices got so crazy in small caps, I fired myself,” he says. “My portfolio was 90% in cash at the end, because I couldn’t find anything to buy. If I’d kept investing, I was sure I’d lose people their money.” He adds, “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done professionally, but I didn’t feel I had a choice. I knew my companies were overvalued.” Mr. Cinnamond hopes to return to the market when, in his view, values become attractive again. He doesn’t expect recent conditions to be permanent. The evaporation of thousands of companies may have one enduring result, however — and it could catch many investors by surprise. Most research on historical returns, points out Mr. Mauboussin, is based on the days when the stock market had twice as many companies as it does today. “Was the population of companies so different then,” he asks, “that the inferences we draw from it might no longer be valid?” So-called factor investing, also known as systematic or smart-beta investing, picks hundreds or thousands of stocks at a time based on common sources of risk and return. Among them: how big companies are, how much their shares fluctuate, how expensive their shares are relative to asset value and so on. But the historical outperformance of many such factors may have been driven largely by the tiniest companies — exactly those that have disappeared from the market in droves. Before concluding that small stocks or cheap “value” stocks will outrace the market as impressively as they did in the past, you should pause to consider how they will perform without the tailwinds from thousands of tiny stocks that no longer exist. The stock market has more than tripled in the past eight years, so the eclipse of so many companies hasn’t been a catastrophe. But it does imply that investing in some of the market’s trendiest strategies might be less profitable in the future than they looked in the past.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6", "text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d502149a85e0fe587f5e0b9b1570ba9c", "text": "It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3123290e32d907c6d91f25b639be154", "text": "Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cfb787181731c3db190ce83e73934f7", "text": "You can't. If there was a reliable way to identify an undervalued stock, then people would immediately buy it, its price would rise and it wouldn't be undervalued any more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0781f8a4ea12589a43b6447b9e7066ea", "text": "\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \"\"short squeeze\"\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \"\"straddle\"\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04be15b6800d5c5717ebe50622497f3", "text": "\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"", "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": "cb5918e849d1e717ad6b71c9f01f57f8", "text": "Matt Levine talked about a cute scam that this resembles, a kind of extended short squeeze. You manipulate up the stock of a company, so that it's obviously way above the fundamental value. Word will get out. Then the shorts come in. But the value remains stubbornly high. All the stock is held by a few insiders, but they didn't manipulate the stock price to do a pump and dump. They did it to milk the shorts on borrow cost.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e4a6f20f1d8ec5ed31c6003b6ff660df", "text": "\"Free Cash Flow (FCF) is not a metric/data point which represents any ACTUAL cash flow of a company. FCF is a data point which communicates how much cash a company has after Operating cash requirements and cash expenditures \"\"required\"\" to grow and maintain the existing business. FCF can be used to pay dividends, buy back stock, purchase companies, et cetera. None of which are REQUIRED to run the business.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c", "text": "E&amp;P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "237d225e0da24ae0ac9d26ba666568d8", "text": "i will not calculate it for you but just calculate the discounted cash flow (by dividing with 1.1 / 1.1^2 / 1.1^3 ...)of each single exercise as stated and deduct the 12.000 of the above sum. in the end compare which has the highest npv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8958b5c15f7245431cc66cdfeca66ed0", "text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de1433f15a5657ab6d10c2427bdd38b9", "text": "As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2649f29b989d8e7f895fca5b3d7d7194", "text": "\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc784201d1147155f79cd4e356cbe61a", "text": "edit: nevermind. i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds. For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates. For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks. So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.", "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": "9351d22e6c503efd0342ed11b4695e78", "text": "I just called options express, and apparently you need a margin account for futures and options, but you don't NEED margin to trade futures. I will have to debate the merits, but I think I may try playing with it once I build up my regular stock account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88f2601280f52c488c4745adbf7d599a", "text": "I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b98bac35fca6833f115fb68dd9e9e2", "text": "The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aade973ed2fc9f2d0cc26bc56b1d2607", "text": "This looks more like an aggregation problem. The Dividends and Capital Gains are on quite a few occassions not on same day and hence the way Yahoo is aggregating could be an issue. There is a seperate page with Dividends and capital gains are shown seperately, however as these funds have not given payouts every year, it seems there is some bug in aggregating this info at yahoo's end. For FBMPX http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=FBMPX&b=2&a=00&c=1987&e=17&d=01&f=2014&g=v https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fees-and-prices/316390681 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FBMPX", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee13d447ca63a0e4424994931d061598", "text": "https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png &gt;The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm It will turn, downside potential is historic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "379fd084a7b1339e70292490902c9a36", "text": "I don't see a contrast. It's really hard to predict which mutual funds will do well in the future. Predicting that ones which have done well recently will continue to do well works slightly better than chance. The WSJ article and Morningstar agree on all the objective facts, they just spin them differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19ac0999abb883032e6599d328eeb541", "text": "The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85f66c1e48bebc938ca53a2fc722f965", "text": "Sure. No-one promises that all the outstanding stocks are ever for sale, but if you get them all - you get them all, what marketplace you used for that doesn't really matter.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3a78bb55ecfe2fb430be31b6985c68b4", "text": "It depends completely on the nature of the takeover. When a business is bought, the new owner takes on the obligations of the prior owner, the debts don't just go away. When a business files for bankruptcy, its debts may get discharged, and gift card holders can easily be the first ones to get nothing back. A case in point was Sharper Image who stopped honoring gift cards even while the doors were open as they filed for bankruptcy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e3871bf398dd6ea9e573b13ebb1319c", "text": "I know this is old, but Joe Taxpayer is wrong. When you dissolve a corporation in selling it, all liabilities go with the old owners and the new owners, smartly starting with a new corporation and taxpayer ID, start with a clean slate. The only way this is not true is if the new owners did not change a thing legally and kept everything the same, other than there names, which would be entirely insane if you asked any lawyer in the country. Gift cards are a touchy situation, if not negotiated in the deal, by law the new owners DO NOT have to take them. Yes, it's good PR, but when there's a considerable amount of money out there it could bury the new owners by giving away free stuff.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "67671d949d47e992245884da2f90c06b", "text": "The NY company's board of directors are your agents and fiduciaries. I'll call them your agents below. The acquiring company entered into some contract that your agents negotiated. Whatever the acquiring company owes you in terms of money, equity, or specific communication is based on what your agents dealt for in the sale contract. Best ask your agents what they got for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd5a5805c50b110f2775b8b4850f1a38", "text": "5.) Target allowed the use of the coupons for gift certificates, negating the profit they would have made themselves. The customers did not create this situation. Target also renewed the coupon system with full knowledge of the circumstances. Corporate systems are hardly capable of knowledgeably allowing injury they can prevent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18beb46cb0338a631f4fa4b4b77fcea", "text": "My understanding it that the signature requirement is at the retailer's discretion. If the merchant decides to require a signature it protects them against fraudulent charge-back claims, but increases their administrative costs. In some situations it just isn't practical for a retailer to require a signature. Consider for example mail-order or online purchases, which I've never had to sign a credit card slip for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e5fe8aaa425cd08ca576a07c27c3f16", "text": "You'd have to consult a lawyer in the state that the transaction took place to get a definitive answer. And also provide the details of the contract or settlement agreement. That said, if you clearly presented the check as payment (verbally or otherwise) and they accepted and cashed the check, and it cleared, you should have good legal standing to force them to finalize the payment. While they had every right to refuse the payment, and also every right to place a hold on the credit until the transaction cleared their bank, they don't have the right to simply claim the payment as a gift just because it came in a different form than they specified in the contract. Obviously this is a lesson learned on reading the fine print though. And, to be frank, it sounds like someone wants to make life difficult for you for whatever reason. And if that is the case I would refer back to my initial comment about contacting a lawyer in that state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43e8c95da1e279bf671b0131e76f83ba", "text": "Good question. I have no idea what legal recourse they have to reverse gift and credit card purchases. Cash people are probably safe. Like I said, it's unlikely they will do anything, but I would not be holding on to gift cards purchased via gift cards if it was my money on the line.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63cb75611375746f06571c1a15539d58", "text": "\"I can't give you proper legal advice, but if I called their customer service and used half an hour of my time to wait and explain the situation in detail, and their official response was \"\"just use the points,\"\" I would do just that. Of course you would have stronger legal standing if you had recorded their answer, or had it in writing from them. But I don't think spending these points will come crashing down on you. And morally I see absolutely no problem with spending these points; it is not as if you are stealing from someone else. These points can usually be given away in any kind of crazy manner. Sometimes there are lotteries or events where they give away 100,000 points for new customers who open up an account on a specific weekend. Sometimes they give points to customers who want to terminate their contracts as an attempt to coax them into staying. They have given you a lot of points and don't really care. As a result you are probably staying their customer forever – and will most likely tell this story to many friends. This is free advertising for them. Heck, maybe they would even make a news story out of this some day, it could be good publicity. Everyone is essentially getting these points \"\"for free\"\" but in fact the company has a business case by improving their image and customer retention with these points. So you can spend these points with a sound mind morally. Legally you would have to contact a lawyer, but I think chances for legal repercussions are small if you have done your duty, informed them and their customer service basically said it's ok.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05a2f8e0a28b65ca24ec68ecb84e114d", "text": "The way I have seen this done in the past is the business will withhold taxes on the amount of the gift. Very much like receiving a bonus. There are probably other ways to do it where taxes are avoided like you boss could buy the gift for you personally. Not sure about all the legal ways to avoid taxes on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4fe313697ab1f1eda3dfb44d0d27106", "text": "Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. I'm sorry, but scrip issues are free (for all ordinary shareholders) and are in proportion to existing share holding. No payment is required from shareholders. So instead of having 10 $1 shares, the shareholder (if accepts) now could have 20 50p shares, if it was a one-for-one scrip issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc9e6fa705358329c493d5f29d33399b", "text": "\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \"\"lost\"\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8843fe9bca74bcb7d197cc97362eaae", "text": "I found a german article describing the legal situation in Germany. To summarize As outlined by the many possible reasons in the other answer, it is unclear from the information I have, whether condition 1 holds. Also condition 2 may not hold since the credit card was frozen. I suppose this makes a good argument to MasterCard and my bank, but I also suspect they will not care unless it comes with a attorney letterhead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f09a405c8242b6ac42a50f5bbd2bd20", "text": "\"Getting \"\"physical stocks\"\" will in most cases only be for the \"\"fun of it\"\". Most stocks nowadays are registered electronically and thus the physical stock will be of no value - it will just be a certificate saying that you own X amount of shares in company X; but this information is at the same time registered electronically. Stocks are not like bearer bonds, the certificate itself contains no value and is registered to each individual/entity. Because the paper itself is worthless, stealing it will not affect your amount of stock with the company. This is true for most stocks - there may exist companies who live in the 70s and do not keep track of their stock electronically, but I suspect it will only be very few (and most likely very small and illiquid companies).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6d8ecadbd9030bfa54936e96161faef", "text": "Question 1: Who do I report such fraud to? Walmart, or their card processor. They may be in their right to require the original purchaser to do the report. Generally, credit card and debit card fraud must be reported to the bank within 60 days of the statement for them to take responsibility. I don't see why gift cards would be different. You can also report it to the police, but I believe you'll be asked to file a report in the jurisdiction where the card was used. Again - time is of the essence, and there's nothing much they could do with your report now. Question 2: How can I recover the $100 value of my Walmart gift card? At this point, 2.5 years later when the card was used to buy prepaid cards, there's no way to catch the thief and recover the funds. Had you reported it promptly, Wlamart could have block the prepaid cards sold or track their usage, but now is too late. Question 3: Is Citibank in any way liable? (The gift card was fraudulently used shortly after---within the same month---I received it from Citibank.) I doubt it unless you can show a pattern. It could be someone working for the Citibank, someone working for the USPS, or someone just stole a bunch of numbers and waited until they became activated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3c2aed57ee5fbf0d1db32a4a7e0c190", "text": "They cannot refuse to accept coins and demand some other payment after providing a good or service. Legal tender is legal tender for all debts. But until they provide the good or service, they don't have to accept it. In this case, you want the service of depositing money. But by its nature, they have to accept the payment first. In that situation, they can refuse it. There is no law that banks have to accept your deposits. If they don't want you as a customer, that's their problem. Consider switching banks. Historically this was easier and some banks may still do things the old way. Call your local banks and ask. Perhaps you'll find someone happy to do business with you, on your terms. As already said, some coin rolling machines will pay you with gift certificates. If you plan to buy a sufficient amount from the place that accepts the gift certificate, this can get that place to play the fee. That may help you, although it is obviously a limited solution. The goal is to make it so that you only make purchases that you would have anyway. The seller obviously has a different goal. It's possible to buy coin sorters. Heck, you could buy one with a gift certificate from a public machine. Cheap ones require extra work to get the coins rolled and may jam a lot. More expensive ones do more of the work for you. Note that a given sorter that works better may be cheaper than another that doesn't work as well. Cheap is more of a qualitative judgment than a financial measure in this case. If you carry a small amount of change with you, pretty much everywhere accepts small amounts of change for purchases. So if you have been always paying with dollars and dumping the change in a jar, instead always give the correct change (coins). They may still give you dollars in change, but at least you won't get new coins. And you'll use some of your existing coins. Of course, this doesn't scale well. For small purchases, say $1.50, you can often pay the whole thing in change without argument. Or if something is $18.50, you might give them $10, $5, two $1 bills, and the rest in change. If you are buying something and can see that they have little change in one of the coin buckets, offer to swap some change for bills. Sometimes places find that easier than breaking a roll. With vending machines, use change instead of dollar bills. Especially use exact change so as not to convert bills to change. They usually don't take pennies, but they're great with nickels and above. This won't allow you to use change as a way to force yourself to save. But it will keep your change down to a manageable level going forward. And you might be able to use up your existing store. I'm assuming that this isn't a fifty year coin collection that you are just now starting to process. But if you have six months of change, you should be able to use it up in a year or so. I tend to do this. So I rarely have more than a couple dollars in change. No one ever tells me that they don't take change, because I don't give anyone a lot. Maybe $.99 here but more likely $.43 there. Sometimes I give them, e.g., $.07 so as to get $.25 in change rather than $.18. It's a little more work at every transaction, but it saves the big clump of work of rolling the coins. And you don't have to buy wrappers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41a06545fc835b047c6d7573dbab219c", "text": "\"So this situation is fraud. -SumGuy: \"\"Hey Mr. Target employee can I use this to buy this.\"\" -Employee: \"\"Abso-fucking-lutely Sir\"\". The responsibility lies on the store, not the customer in this situation. Terms of service on things like coupons are not LAWS, they are terms a company is telling you they will accept. For this Company to then accept it makes these people a few bucks richer, not criminals. The customers did not lie or hide what they where doing, and the company accepted it. Good on em I say.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b96288340f7a74edaf5cd6401bbece0e", "text": "All of this assumes that this relationship isn't as employer-employee relationship, which would require you to withhold taxes. If you send them a small token of appreciation, and you are unable to record it as a business expense, or some other deductible expense, you don't have to be concerned about how they claim it. They decide if they want to risk claiming it was a gift, or if they want to record it as an expense. Even if you say some magic phrase that you think will impress the IRS, the recipient can still decide declare it as income. To have any hope of being able to treat it as a gift they would have to be able to demonstrate that there is a non-business relationship. If you can claim it as a business expense, or a deductible expense, they will have to also claim it as income; because your documentation could point the IRS to their lack of documentation. Giving them a check or sending the payment electronically will require them to claim it as an income, since an audit could require them to explain every line on their bank statements.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "40360b49e289a7118e858513501b2fb8", "text": "I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless. It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well. Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state. If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage. I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood. Exchange rates typically slow down trade. (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor). And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now. I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0c2c9c130645d49832b4a83c7a1b772d", "text": "I don't know if vanilla beans are traded on any organized exchange, and if they are, it's probably extremely obscure and very hard to access without having both of a lot of money and in-country connections. Edit: no, they're not. So there is no real way to short them. https://www.ft.com/content/e0e2fc16-28db-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c?mhq5j=e2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bc83aba8d1e3c106be922149a80c466", "text": "This guy is literally proposing a bucket shop. Trades against customers and copy their trades. No centralized clearing (it's not executing trades at all). And he thinks these are good things that customers should get him for. Scam. And a very old one at that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1f971e5df4506e6bc1077d7753c9161", "text": "\"No, I'm sorry, but the fact that exchanges allow \"\"pay to play\"\" privelege to scalp orders is fairly well established at this time. It's skirts law simply because the exchanges don't profit *directly* from it. I understand that folks are upset that SEC is looking into turning off this free money faucet, but harranguing Katsayuma for opening a fair exchange that shuns the practice is a point of contention for me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce47a05f533def8a477949d494e2707e", "text": "Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe", "text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa201189bdfec5bd9d4e1380f29f863d", "text": "Most investors vote with their wallets. I expect ZERO glitches from a trading platform. If someone was actually causing trades to fail maliciously, their reputation would immediately suffer and their business would dry up over night. You can't just play dumb and not respond to a button click. I can watch and replay the traffic I'm sending out to their server and see if they are responding to verify this. If their system goes down and has no redundancy, that is their fault and opens them to lawsuits. No trading platform could withstand scrutiny from its users if it was dishonest in the scenario you imagine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746fadc47e6606d3a1730a15c59391f2", "text": "I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b20c6a5a5c7ade576e954c164b0a7253", "text": "How easy is it to take out your money? To they offer any trading? Do you have to put more money up on your own to trade with? This seems pretty sketchy. I am currently working at a prop trading firm and although some sketchy firms require you to make a deposit, most legit ones do not. Not to mention their commissions are incredibly high (I interviewed at another sketchy firm but only charges a couple cents for commission). &gt;most of the time you get rebates on them If it is not explicitly stated in the contract of how they decide your rebates than don't expect much. Most of the trading industry is build around taking advantage of people where people's word soon becomes meaningless unless it is in writing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41734e5f71ad45eb45327676b3ef67da", "text": "\"The success rate is terrible. At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor? Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years? That's not far off for the success of traders. Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it. What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader? How much will you work to be a successful trader? Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader? Who cares if \"\"soandso\"\" can do it? If you want it, you should be saying, \"\"I will do it because I say so\"\". Only you know if you're willing to take the risk. At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out? Check out /r/getmotivated...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5c671699b2c194916502a7a365a692", "text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f98342a46aadd4f3c7192e8b9415206c", "text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d410df70f15fa6b3c0b7476264502873", "text": "Yeah, it can be a scam. Lots of unscrupulous companies try to generate commissions by encouraging frequent trading - I can't recall the term they use right now, but I don't like to use these people for advice. My bank has 100 free trades per year for each account, which is more than enough for me to never pay a commission.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944", "text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b047dc87c3ad4c48201382f49eba180a", "text": "Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec", "text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "04222a44c6726ee87bd6ae80436e1e2e", "text": "Before investing, absolutely follow the advice in mbhunter's answer. There is no safe investment (unless you count your mattress, and even there you could find moths, theives, or simple inflation taking a chunk out of your change). There is only maximizing your reward for a given level of risk - and there is always risk. This question should be enshrined somewhere on the Q&A site for its comprehensive list of sources for information on asset allocation. The tag is also going to have tons of good information for you. To answer your question on what slice of the pie is devoted to what, you can check out some common portfolios given by U. S. experts for U. S. investors - these should be convertible into Australian funds. Another portfolio that is, like all those above, loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory for maximizing reward for a given level of risk is the Gone Fishin' Portfolio. A common denominator amongst these portfolios is that they emphasize index funds over mutual funds for their long-term performance and preference lazy management (yearly rebalancing is a common suggestion as the maximum level of involvement) over active management. You can see more Lazy Portfolios.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca08e689fcc2c9d406480c808f9c09c8", "text": "This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation. For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes. This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate. Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b69b3a68a1a82649455e15faa0085ff", "text": "You don't say your level of consumer debt. You don't say how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have debt, pay it off before you invest. If you don't have an emergency fund (X months' expenses, pick your own X) get that before investing. If you have neither, get a small emergency fund, and then throw as much as you can to getting rid of debt. Beyond that, look for prudent investments. They're not the same as conservative investments. To know what's prudent, learn about the ones you listed and what determines their prices. Learn how or why they go up or down in value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6364703e78f43605fee86e784493e31a", "text": "\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ce624b0a62f54657bca647d8d3f3c8e", "text": "The safest place to put money is a mixture of cash, local municipal bond funds with average durations under two years and US Treasury bond funds with short durations. Examples of good short term US municipal funds: I'm not an active investor in Australian securities, so I won't recommend anything specific. Because rates are so low right now, you want a short duration (ie. funds where the average bond matures in < 2 years) fund to protect against increased rates. The problem with safety is that you won't make any money. If your goal to grow the value of your investment while minimizing risk, you need to look at equities. The portfolios posted by justkt are a great place to start.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a957e26c9c2338bb6e50c5611c3d019e", "text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1034f141e13d0ab627501a394187997c", "text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.", "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": "60dbfff8b0fc19a14a628170f4c6aa8d", "text": "\"The question is asking for a European equivalent of the so-called \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio. \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio is defined by the two URLs provided in question as, Criteria for fund composition Fixed-income: Regardless of country or supra-national market, the fixed-income fund should have holdings throughout the entire length of the yield curve (most available maturities), as well as being a mix of government, municipal (general obligation), corporate and high-yield bonds. Equity: The common equity position should be in one equity market index fund. It shouldn't be a DAX-30 or CAC-40 or DJIA type fund. Instead, you want a combination of growth and value companies. The fund should have as many holdings as possible, while avoiding too much expense due to transaction costs. You can determine how much is too much by comparing candidate funds with those that are only investing in highly liquid, large company stocks. Why it is easier for U.S. and Canadian couch potatoes It will be easier to find two good funds, at lower cost, if one is investing in a country with sizable markets and its own currency. That's why the Couch Potato strategy lends itself most naturally to the U.S.A, Canada, Japan and probably Australia, Brazil, South Korea and possibly Mexico too. In Europe, pre-EU, any of Germany, France, Spain, Italy or the Scandinavian countries would probably have worked well. The only concern would be (possibly) higher equity transactions costs and certainly larger fixed-income buy-sell spreads, due to smaller and less liquid markets other than Germany. These costs would be experienced by the portfolio manager, and passed on to you, as the investor. For the EU couch potato Remember the criteria, especially part 2, and the intent as described by the Couch Potato name, implying extremely passive investing. You want to choose two funds offered by very stable, reputable fund management companies. You will be re-balancing every six months or a year, only. That is four transactions per year, maximum. You don't need a lot of interaction with anyone, but you DO need to have the means to quickly exit both sides of the trade, should you decide, for any reason, that you need the money or that the strategy isn't right for you. I would not choose an ETF from iShares just because it is easy to do online transactions. For many investors, that is important! Here, you don't need that convenience. Instead, you need stability and an index fund with a good reputation. You should try to choose an EU based fund manager, or one in your home country, as you'll be more likely to know who is good and who isn't. Don't use Vanguard's FTSE ETF or the equivalent, as there will probably be currency and foreign tax concerns, and possibly forex risk. The couch potato strategy requires an emphasis on low fees with high quality funds and brokers (if not buying directly from the fund). As for type of fund, it would be best to choose a fund that is invested in mostly or only EU or EEU (European Economic Union) stocks, and the same for bonds. That will help minimize your transaction costs and tax liability, while allowing for the sort of broad diversity that helps buy and hold index fund investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cca52044dd1b928369fc8e2ad8a9e", "text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce9537c51f2349ef3b2921eeeec8a658", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04", "text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee", "text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eac11a4d733d751de25624ac4dd2d817", "text": "\"Without knowing anything else about you, I'd say I need more information. If all of your investments are in stocks, then that's not really diversified, regardless of how many stocks you own. There are other things to invest in besides stocks (and bonds, for that matter). What countries? \"\"International\"\" is pretty broad, and some countries are better bets than others at the moment. If you're old, I'd say very little of your money should be in stocks anyway. I'd also seek financial advice that is tailored to your goals, sophistication, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903", "text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "075700e1a0c8d91865339a4c8c4fdc1f", "text": "\"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based. That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500. With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all. If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you \"\"believed in yourself\"\" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random. Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason. If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked. (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain. If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ? If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations. You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is. Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000. If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year. However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932", "text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cafffcc507a7d7a0376e05fbf08013fd", "text": "Nobody can give you a safe 6% return with that portfolio under current conditions. It looks like the current 10 year treasury is yielding about 2.2%. With 60% in bonds, the stocks would have to yield about 12%, which just isn't happening safely now.", "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": "0f0d2806fddac004c3cdc11e569e2489", "text": "\"Rich people use \"\"depositor\"\" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the \"\"real work\"\", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from \"\"safe havens\"\" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small. Our decision, therefore, is largely to invest or not to invest. The upper 1%, on the other hand, have controlling interests in their investments, often majority holdings that allow them far more control over the businesses they invest in, who's running them and what they do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaa8aad4c12291860d68cfacd8f7b6ed", "text": "I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb4d887a729760610520284af03e61a8", "text": "Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa8cc03843dd6506bc631e247fd19868", "text": "Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d4e2ae1a529e77472855bdaa6f802a7", "text": "The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fdc0c096584047dd029d2407e86289d", "text": "With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b3a7ea7a18655ce93d4b616d9b56a7dc", "text": "To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf3bc8530ff8a4c61381016dc51ebae5", "text": "In most cases of fraud, your liability is limited to $50 if you report it within certain number of days (I think 2). After that the liability grows to something like $500. You are covered even if your negligence has caused the breach. In addition VISA guarantees credit cards - in most cases you have 0 liability. Finally checking & savings accounts are FDIC insured up to $250,000 in case the bank goes bankrupt. The $250,000 is a total for all accounts at the given bank. It's up to you to report and ask for refund though and sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get it but usually it's fairly straightforward and it usually takes only 2 or 3 days.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0813109a518c4556c2b14a0b0b8bc4ff", "text": "The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category. The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30036900c61f555fd1276bf5e10425c8", "text": "\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddd515b9ee7e1314156eac28ec463373", "text": "Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt? The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient. If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef15667412971eea6b43a973276ba24b", "text": "In the US, pension benefits promised by employers are tightly regulated by a law called ERISA. One of the requirements is that money be deposited in a trust that is out of the reach of the employer and the employer's creditors, so even if the employer falls on hard times or goes bankrupt, the money to pay the pensions is still there. In addition, the benefits are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (usually called the PBGC). Relative to most investments, pensions are a safe bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "336b6996b017bb551981361ee8664699", "text": "You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af8d1a231445e40ec2269437e4e6821e", "text": "http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3be5d3a72a70dcebc60ef2851f5f9a6", "text": "And set to get higher. Wait until the super rich start eating the poorer super rich. We don't even know what the 1% really has because the sample sizes are so small. We do know there's trillions in offshore accounts but we don't know who owns it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a", "text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2be2bbdb0a7ff1bfde794353ad8c0e0", "text": "\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \"\"Safe and Sound Ratings\"\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \"\"big to fail\"\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \"\"assets\"\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88f929d4ba467b6a84f2f43272191d01", "text": "I didn't realize that! Thanks for the correction. A bit of google-fu provided this: &gt;[Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers.](http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ac5ffe36c101ca43bf5aead9409f206", "text": "None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.", "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": "eb83ca5442a18d421fab68113cd1df8b", "text": "\"I doubt there is anything you can do to convince them you paid, outside of just talking to them, which it seems you already tried. These are the possibilities I can think of for how this happened: IMHO, the most likely scenario is #4. If 1 or 3 happened you'll never see your money again, but the other 3 possibilities leave open the option of the error being discovered in the future. My suggestion, if the copay is small, is to pay it again, ask for a receipt, and ask them to make a note in the system that you claim you already paid, and ask them to \"\"be on the look-out\"\" for any discrepancies in that amount. This way, (with a good amount of luck), if they find it or discover the error (from another customer asking about the credit, or an accounting cash surplus), they can refund it to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84016dea6a0bc566afa2c0dd291cd850", "text": "\"What you should do is called \"\"re-characterization\"\". See the instructions for form 8606 for details (that is also the form to use to report the incident). See example 3: You made a contribution to a Roth IRA and later recharacterized part or all of it to a traditional IRA. Report the nondeductible traditional IRA portion, if any, on Form 8606, Part I. If you did not recharacterize the entire contribution, do not report the remaining Roth IRA portion of the contribution on Form 8606. Attach a statement to your return explaining the recharacterization. If the recharacterization occurred in 2012, include the amount transferred from the Roth IRA on Form 1040, line 15a; Form 1040A, line 11a; or Form 1040NR, line 16a. If the recharacterization occurred in 2013, report the amount transferred only in the attached statement, and not on your 2012 or 2013 tax return. You re-characterize it back to traditional IRA contribution, which will not be deductible. You then convert it back to a Roth IRA. Basically you end up at exactly the same place, except that if you already had some gains on that amount - you'll have to pay tax on them now (for the conversion, since because of the re-characterization, it will now be gains in a traditional IRA). You should of course contact your broker to do the re characterization (reassigning of the amount and its gains from a Roth IRA account to a traditional IRA account).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f02d14b3b88c6a19f10f13209e2455d", "text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0330082ac65d66aa4934120480a8fe", "text": "You need to give specific dates! In the United States, you have three years to file an amended tax return. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ten-Facts-about-Amended-Tax-Returns Did the restaurant fail in 2012? If so, that's probably the year to take the loss. If you need to amend your 2012 return, which you filed in 2013, you should have until 2016 to file this. The exact date may be based on when you filed 2012 taxes!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09cb7679a6622307a4a0930d9926cce1", "text": "I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "973cfdc20978cd862876108bc3168cc6", "text": "If the correction results in you owing them money, you typically just need to pay them the appropriate amount. I believe they charge back-dated interest on the amount if it was supposed to have been paid in the past, but if it's for this year's taxes then payment isn't due until the end of April and so interest would not apply. In some circumstances, they may apply fines or press charges for tax evasion, but only if they have reason to believe you intentionally/knowingly attempted to misrepresent your tax return in order to avoid paying taxes. You can challenge their decision to fine you, but you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Obviously that's the opposite for any criminal charges. The good news is, lots of people accidentally enter the wrong numbers and the CRA is aware of this and rarely takes action against them, other than making them pay what they owe. They have ways to look for suspicious behavior and differentiate that from innocent mistakes. So don't worry, you should be fine, not fined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab60ff3d34ff776f877eb92c0f2a2706", "text": "\"This is an unfortunate situation for you. You have zero chance at your question number 1, if someone was going to bend this rule for you it would have happened already. The answer to question number 2 is pursue solution number 3. The overriding issue is that the IRS makes these rules, not the employer/plan sponsor or the administrator. You can't talk the plan administrator in to reimbursing you, their system likely doesn't even have a function to do so. FSA timing issues can be complex and I think that's the root of your issue because when an expense can be incurred (date of service versus date of payment) and when a claim must be filed are different things. It's really common to bend the rules on when a claim is submitted, but not when it was incurred. It's really common for an exiting employee to have 30 days to submit expenses for reimbursement. FSA expenses must always be incurred within the specified plan year, or within your dates of employment if you weren't employed for the entire plan year, this is specified by the IRS. It seems like some wires were crossed when you asked this question. You were asking \"\"can I still incur claims\"\" and they were hearing \"\"how long do I have to submit an expense that has already been incurred.\"\" Some plans allow COBRA continuation on FSA which generally does not make sense. Your contributions to the plan would use after tax dollars but for folks who know they have an eligible expense coming it can make sense to continue via COBRA in retain your eligibility under the plan so you can incur a claim after your employment termination. Regarding number 3. This sort of reimbursement would be outside the plan, no precedent is necessary. You've gotten them to claim it was their mistake, they're going to reimburse you for their mistake, it has nothing to do with the FSA. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96b8fbf19e0d9bba77b45d071ea95197", "text": "\"Turbotax community had a similar question. They claim you just put it into \"\"Office Expense\"\". I never understood why there are so many categories when they are just summed up and subtracted from your income. How can you possibly get in trouble for putting something in a wrong column if the final tax liability doesn't change.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91284308cba499b85643f7b82623a40f", "text": "Underwriting manager here. It's not a big deal. Call your processor or loan officer tomorrow to make sure it's been cleared. My guess is that the underwriter or loan officer noted the discrepancy and corrected it in their systems. You'll have to sign a updated 1003 and 4506T at closing with correct info. In other words...no biggie, no worries. Not a show stopper at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1513d548321287b8b1ab7d6ac433981", "text": "\"Buried on the IRS web site is the \"\"Fillable Forms Error Search Tool\"\". Rather than including an explanation of errors in the rejection email itself, you're expected to copy and paste the error email into this form, which gives more details about what's wrong. (Don't blame me; I didn't design it.) If I copy your error message in, here's the response I get: There is an error with the “primary taxpayer’s Date of Birth” in Step 2 Section 4. The date of birth that was entered does not match IRS records. Make sure you enter the correct birth date, in the correct format, in the correct space. Scroll down, and enter the current date (“Today’s date”). Today’s date is the day you intend to e-file the return again. Also, if you are making an electronic payment you must re-date that section. E-File your return. You say that you've already checked your birthday, so I don't know as this is particularly helpful. If you're confident that it's correct and in the right place, I think your next step needs to be contacting the IRS directly. They have a link at the bottom of the error lookup response on how to contact them specifically about their solution not working, or you could try contacting your local IRS office or giving them a call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d42df4b19921edac9589e2d0d8ad984a", "text": "\"The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about \"\"small government\"\" and \"\"cutting government expenses\"\" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22", "text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd95509e847580c275bb372e84f35c71", "text": "An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e099e701dd6df16a91d3ffbb155fbb2", "text": "I would behave exactly as I would expect it from others. If you were the one giving away too many points by accident you would be thankful if somebody notifies you about this error. You can write a letter or call them. I would not use the points (of course only not use the points which are added in error). Other options are possible but I would advise against them. It's just about fair play and the points are clearly not yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90ac357b1ab65e33ccc03a8fbdc10b0f", "text": "Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52feda2bfa5b003fa24d3ee131ed0895", "text": "Because people are going deeper into debt and filing for bankruptcy more often, there is more risk on behalf of the credit company. Therefore, they limit their risk by lower limits and increasing interest. For every person that goes bankrupt, there might be 10 that pay that new higher interest rate, thereby netting a profit even though they lost out completely on the one customer. The recent legislation limited how and under what circumstance rate are adjusted and raised, but not forbidden. As for the fact that these banks took tax money under the idea (we all thought) I see two points of view. We never should have had the credit we did, so they are correcting and you (like me and millions of others) are suffering for their prior mistakes. It is an honest attempt to correct the system for long term stability even if we suffer in the short term. We gave them tax money, they need to not screw us over. In response to the still frozen credit markets I would suggest penalty taxes to companies that do not lend. Penalties to companies that do not modify mortgages. The second you take government money is the last second a you are entitled to a profit of anything. Furthermore, we the people bought you and we the people get to decide your salary. The bottom line is there is truth in both statements. Things are totally screwed up right now because we ALL made mistakes in the past trying to get a bigger profit or own a bigger house. There are those among us who didn't make a mistake, and those among us who made nothing but mistakes. As a society, we have to pay the piper either way. The best thing you can do now is pay down your debts, live simply and spend your money wisely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7d475ac985236303a07bffee976baea", "text": "Of course your situation is very hurtful at a personal level, and I sympathize. I just don't get your point about being driven further into debt? It would seem that with a lower credit score you are prevented from taking on more debt. That can absolutely be hurtful especially to someone who runs a business that relies on short term credit. As for why they do this, they do it to reduce their risk - they don't want to lend more money, they are afraid that you will lose your job and default. Of course it is not as personal as I am writing it, not for you (they don't target you personally - they target your credit profile) and not for them (it is a matter of how the market views the debt and how much they can trade on such debt, not what they want to do personally). As for the TARP bailouts not releasing enough credit - this is reality. Goverment always thinks it can influence the situation more than it actually can. In order to unfreeze credit there needs to be a growing economy that makes the risk look acceptable. No amount of Goverment nudging will really change that more than marginally. By the way, legislation like this (forcing credit card companies to not raise their rates) can lead to credit restrictions. By artifically forcing the rates down the risk has to be ballanced somewhere - so it will be ballanced by lowering credit lines or by other means. Like any price control, if you restrict the price, it causes shortages. Intrest rates are the price of credit.", "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": "312d32a49042514a7405bb87a35c97c5", "text": "I disagree with the reply. Your both impressions are correct. - Do not close old credit cards because they keep your credit rating high (fico score) - Also low utilization that credit cards report to credit rating companies, improves your rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3324341128f77a61d22d572bfaca98f0", "text": "Is this the time of year this board attracts question regarding the law and how to skirt it? I've done as you suggested. I happened to have a month that I was going to blow through the $12000 limit I had on my credit card. So as the balance crossed $8000, I paid that amount, and when the bill was cut, it was just $4000 or so. Scrutiny would show the reason for partial payments was obvious, I wanted to avoid going over limit. I wouldn't have done so just to avoid the $10,000 transaction. Since then, I've asked that the limit be raised in case I have another wild month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b991de97e591aec303c936350c676c", "text": "\"So basically, the bar has been lowered due to the fact that so many people don't qualify for credit. The medical debt issue is one thing, but the fact that only 28% of home purchases these days are first time home buyers instead of 40% says more about our unaffordable higher educational system, labor market and people's ability to earn decent income than it does about credit being \"\"too tight\"\". If anything this is a loosening of standards since the banks have no alternative in order to drum up new sales. They're 12% off the mark and they're finding ways to close the gap. Wages probably won't get better, so they're better off accepting lower quality customers and rolling the dice on their ability to pay off debts over the life of the loans they issue. Sounding familiar?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c08db17711eb452e35317801bdf55f13", "text": "There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done. I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky). Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42929083c698a48194e5d581fc766706", "text": "Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4da24f321fb782c3eadaf9e189c1c90", "text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a81fcec8b06a16d323ca49071561d6e7", "text": "My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9fadccb388697eef8e9da6cb7fdfe97", "text": "I'm not sure what raising your credit limit would do to your score in the short term. I don't think it's a clear win, though. Your percent utilization will go down (more available credit for the same amount of debt) but your available credit will also go up, which may be a negative, since potentially you can default on more debt. If you're interested in monitoring your score, Credit Karma will let you do that for free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d87c699d1503768a304fa752a29f7e3", "text": "Your score is real-time, updating every time new data hits the reporting agencies. Dilip is correct, go over 20%, and it will hit the report, but then the score returns to normal after the next bill shows a sub-20% utilization. Say your average spending is $1000, but your limit is $5000. There's no harm in asking for a small increase in the limit, or simply pay a bit toward the bill before the statement is cut. The bill and reported balance will be lower and your score, unaffected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbff14d0604cfd236b9c40dcd9f54084", "text": "\"A credit card is basically a \"\"revolving\"\" loan, in which you're allowed to borrow up to a certain amount (the limit), and any time you borrow, you pay interest. If you were to *borrow* $100 to pay for something via a credit card, you'd have a $100 balance on the card. If you then pay $70 cash to the card, there would be $30 remaining. That $30 balance could accrue interest. The timing of that interest charge could vary. The 20% you've quoted is almost certainly \"\"APR,\"\" of which the \"\"A\"\" stands for \"\"annual,\"\" so that 20% would be an annual rate. It makes the most sense, mind you, to keep a minimal balance on a credit card, as the interest rate is higher than most other loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8751321bca0cdc9b78979f64f7c8f2b7", "text": "Unfortunately, this is a customer service issue. The bank has a set of term and conditions (Ts and Cs) which you received with the card or when you applied. It included your limit, and what happens when you go over, likely, a penalty for going over the limit. At the very least, they expect you to pay the overage or you'll see an over-limit charge next cycle too. In the future, I'd suggest checking your account on line to monitor your balance. Some accounts offer an alert email, mine will let me set an alert for when my balance goes over $xxx, which is helpful, as I can send in an early payment to bring that balance down. It still never hurts to ask. They might waive fees if any, if this is your first time. You can still try calling them, explain the odd timing, and see if you can get a temporary increase in credit line. In the end, you need to review your finances. Carrying balances month to month at 12-18% is no way to have a successful financial future. It's one of the first things to getting your situation under control. After that, a small savings account, an emergency fund, is the next step. One month of charges should never put you in this bad situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e5ecb0fe258452782762d4a7e06459", "text": "Even if you can get a credit card with a $0 limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that the charges won't succeed. Some of my credit cards have gone over limit by a significant amount (e.g. 140% of limit) without any transactions being declined. The limit just means that the bank is allowed to decline the transaction, but they are also allowed to approve it anyway. So basically what you would have is a credit card where any transaction can always be declined or approved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9803f597eb3d7a5ba67d66094d3a4d74", "text": "Imagine that your normal mode of using credit gets you a score of X. As time goes by your score trends upward if the positive items (length of credit) outweigh your negative items. But there are no big increases or decrease in your score. Then you make a one time change to how you use credit. If this is a event that helps your score, there will be a increase in your score. If it is bad thing your score will drop. But if you go back to your standard method of operating your score will drift back to the previous range. Getting a car loan for a few months to get a bump in your credit score, will not sustain your score at the new level indefinitely. Overtime the impact will lessen, and the score will return your your normal range. Spending money on the loan just to buy a temporary higher credit score is throwing away money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5e579b13be145ba602a0f1c0448c12", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7f58c8fdc6d38c8d60399ba73aaa64bb", "text": "What the automation mostly does is make short-term trading that much more difficult. Day trading is a zero-sum game, so if they win more, everyone else wins less. Long term trading (years to decades) is a positive-sum game; the market as a whole tends to move upward for fairly obvious reasons (at its basis it's still investing, which in turn is based on lending, and as long as folks make fairly rational decisions about how much return they demand for their investment and the companies are mostly producing profits there will be a share of the profit coming back to the investors as dividends or increased share value or both. Day-to-day churn in individual stocks gets averaged out by diversification and time, and by the assumption that if you've waited that long you can wait a bit longer if necessary for jitters to settle out. Time periods between those will partake of some mix of the two.", "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": "5a5353cdeaaab9284846af6cae9b25d5", "text": "Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit? Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today. You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars). So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell). What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea. You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years. How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d78a5b716489ff3fa60038e90e411c1", "text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fd34136db8af0881a1428438fb5726", "text": "\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1049121ec177abfc5cd10991f71b76c", "text": "Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse. Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6", "text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfc707d9a22071924bec908c2ec0b80d", "text": "\"What do I mean by infrastructure? Well, if you're doing algorithmic trading, you have to have something monitoring data and making decisions on its own, presumably. How do you set that up? There are many ways, and some are better than others. First is a problem of scale. If you're a newbie starting out with some small set of equity tick data, perhaps just trades for instance, you can whip together something that can handle that pretty easily. Check out http://www.marketdatapeaks.com/ though. That's your messaging rates you have to deal with once you go full data feeds direct from all the exchanges. 6.65 million messages/events per second. That's a lot. And if you fall behind, you lose your lunch. Building a robust system that allows you to easily backtest and deploy strategies is crucial as well. The speed at which you're able to conduct the backtest matters a lot. Doing that rapidly, and accurately is not easy. For a broad market-data handling algo design (and now, clearly, for very specific things you can design one that'll handle stuff better for that one corner case, but this is for general algo trading), optimally you have some sort of setup where you have a: [feed handlers] -&gt; [tickerplant] -&gt; [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -&gt; [order management system] -&gt; [broker] in this setup you have feed handlers that are taking the raw exchange feeds and pushing them to a consolidated tickerplant, where CEP subscribers can come through and sub to the data they want (perhaps I just want ES futures on one, and only want to arb CMCSA and CMCSK on another -- you dont want each CEP subscriber getting your full feed for all tickers all the time, its a waste). so more or less, each independent strategy is its own subscriber to the tickerplant, taking whatever data it wants and only that data (could be \"\"give me all the trades and quotes for all nasdaq stocks, but not book depth\"\" for instance). your CEP does whatever maths it has to do to figure out trading decisions, and when it does, it sends it to your order management system which does your risk checks, etc (\"\"do you have enough money to place this trade?\"\" \"\"do you already have a position in this?\"\" \"\"are you trading against yourself?\"\" ... million other things). your OMS knows how to talk to your broker/directly to the exchange depending on your setup. Assuming all your risk checks pass, off the order goes to the exchange, and it deals with the fill msgs, etc. Now, as far as speed is concerned - try to do all of this at 6.5 million events/second. It's hard. Some strats/cep subscribers will run faster than others, some are slower, some need to keep a full book to work while some work on just trades. Your OMS depending on if youre using only market data sources may need to keep its own book to place orders on behalf of your subscribers if they lack information about various markets (think all the twitter trading bots these days for instance), etc. If you look back at the above setup as well, you'll notice some interesting things. [tickerplant] -&gt; [cep subscriber] portion can stay the same for live trading or backtesting. This is huge. The only thing that changes here for backtesting is that if you're trying to backtest, you can take historical data (query it out of your hopefully column-store database) and push it into your tickerplant rather than having it come from a live feed through the feed handler. Your tickerplant and cep subscriber will never know the difference, so you can use the same exact code for backtesting as you can for live. On the other end, you obviously cant send historical orders to your live broker, so you need to code a simulated OMS that does the backtest simulation (another huge piece of software to code that is hard to do well). But, for backtesting, your setup is staying largely the same except those two end pieces. This means that testing/deving/deploying strats can be pretty rapid, and uses the same code base for live and historical, which helps you eliminate bugs and have to code everything twice. Backtesting design: [historical mkt data db] -&gt; [tickerplant] -&gt; [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -&gt; [order management system simulator/backtester] These are just a few of the many problems that you hit when trying to dev good infra. There are like a million more. Point was simply, it's complicated. And C++ is a good lang. I use a wide variety of languages depending on exactly whats going on and how fast the code needs to be. With a proper tickerplant design, youre using some ipc protocol so a subscriber can be coded in any language. Check out http://www.zeromq.org/ -- thats an excellent piece of software to use to make a tickerplant out of, think they even have a design for one in the docs if I recall. With that, your CEP subscribers can be in any language - perhaps pure C if you need the speed, perhaps .NET or Java if you dont (check out http://esper.codehaus.org/ for a Java implement of a CEP subscriber, nEsper for the C# port of that I believe). But I use C, C++, C#, python, R, x86 asm for a few very minor things, and a lang or two I can't mention here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "291ef739389b414110b5d02538f9e616", "text": "\"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \"\"formula\"\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \"\"fun\"\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8", "text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96a7f25ee20dc1b974b4c5e296b433dd", "text": "if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f366730956ea4bee7d72f14b62e32ce", "text": "There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23e3c409e1db5b21d412f0ca4e4f846b", "text": "\"The stock market may not grow \"\"forever\"\". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re \"\"what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years\"\": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbcdc3ea9bf228d4bf12f852eef8e693", "text": "If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb7eb913f9f29b9425752068c1fd065", "text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"", "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": "a025d389c97e33531f1be1392b2444c3", "text": "\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf00ff1b52ea3a19a9d3dd9db39090b0", "text": "First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0b832c419be0fca81b784603de9143", "text": "Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished.", "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": "caa2039cbfb91620e8f945061e12ad2b", "text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.", "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": "597ca1be1e42819544c011da5e3bc91e", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets.", "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": "d6d448479416e0b711cbe1316622585d", "text": "The stock price is what people think a company is worth, this is made up of When a company pays out a dividend the money in the company’s bank account reduces, therefore the value of the company reduces. When a company says they are going to pay a larger dividend than expected, we start to expect they are going to make more profit next year as well. So stock price tends to go up when a company says it is increasing the dividend, but down on the day then money leaves the companies bank account. There is normally many months between the two events.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "216fb89e9f562ceb58dd1d07bd9fc3dc", "text": "all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b152e7bee118585712db496fe8c45a9d", "text": "There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5", "text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bccb2ad622d8dc8ba8b3cb146cbd4d41", "text": "\"I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up? \"\"But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more\"\" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market. To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says \"\"Hey buy these paper clips for $10\"\". But those paper clips aren't worth that. \"\"It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15\"\". But why would they pay that? \"\"Because some fool after him will pay $20\"\" Ha Ha!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443", "text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801", "text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.", "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": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344", "text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "177520afa3ba3c94f80b068568d73cc0", "text": "\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf00b9c64d4aabe8b6bd0614ef9c82ef", "text": "Are you really talking about share price, or share value? Because what about stock splits? Market Cap stays the same, but the price per share is lowered. This is so that the stock is more liquid and accessible to a greater number of investors. This encourages people to invest in the stock though. I can't really think of any reasons why a company would want to lower their share value or discourage people from investing unless they are trying to reacquire shares. Returning value to the shareholders is the #1 priority of any publicly traded company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd3a39f62b2c1d88d7d979fe0bea2df1", "text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035", "text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4dc47174d1d0b1723aae383b9a0d8096", "text": "\"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need. People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend. You are correct though Pfizer might be considered \"\"more growth.\"\" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon. Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products. Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend. Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible. The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company. Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income. You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well.\"", "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": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c", "text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps", "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": "993bef44f1fa34c11597b5e0657b6118", "text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,", "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": "34dd146d5dc37e1b2ec68b29106277b3", "text": "You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a6ab2ad605b9d03ed7f3dd7d905f179", "text": "In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13fc9e700600ca98feae64f30ff809cc", "text": "Technically, the difference between dividends and growth ought to be that dividends can be reinvested in stocks other than the one that paid them, which is a definite advantage if you actually have a strategy. Dividend -paying stocks used to be preferred for exactly that reason, back in the days when fewer people were directly playing in the market and more knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, getting a periodic dividend from a stock whose price is relatively steady isn't as exciting a game as watching your stock's value bounce around and (hopefully) creep upward on a second-by-second basis. Those who are thinking in gambling terms rather than investment terms -- or who think they can beat the pros at high frequency trading, comment withheld -- want the latter, and have been putting a lot of pressure on companies to operate in the latter mode. That doesn't make it better -- certainly not for the longer-term investors -- just more fashionable. And fashion often means getting stuck with something impractical because everyone else is doing it. On this, I second Scrooge: Humbug!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15f11c4326b15fa7637a697314e30e43", "text": "And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c26484c75879a3b97115ad25d7a5928", "text": "for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ea51f3ed86b6d3207389c9309adb06", "text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "564005dc162c72c98e107c637b036256", "text": "For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e8af2153d47ac0e34eafd553a1d3ccd", "text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d", "text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5e070140e741eeb2fd1c0040fe4f624", "text": "\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bcdd1de92eb70460547ebbf25b8db0", "text": "Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b0807323546c7a24b99d00a653b79a", "text": "Transit FSAs have $255 limits for each of {parking, public transit} per month, considered on a monthly basis separately; and that limit applies both to funding and to claims. You may fund your transit FSA with up to $255 per month for each purpose. You may withdraw up to $255 per month for each purpose. The amounts each month don't have to match, but they do need to each be under the maximum. Any amount you spend over $255 for either parking or public transit would need to be funded with post-tax money. Most transit FSAs have a mechanism for adding a credit card to the account to allow this to be seamless and on-demand (as opposed to be declared in advance). You can change your deduction each month, up to the limit your benefits provider permits (for me for example, I can choose up to the 10th of the prior month what to do). This differs from health care FSAs, which are annual in nature, and must be entirely defined during open enrollment - but as they have annual limits, would allow you to use the full amount even when employed for only half the year.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6b804ef09f486798a3503be8d5ce1a1e", "text": "You seem to have a grasp of the basic principles involved, but your estimation of the risk you are taking seems a bit low. Your non-investment reserves are unlikely to cover your expenses for more than a month, so the chance that you would need to sell investments to cover additional expenses is high. You mention that I am flexible with the 'cash on hand' amount. For instance, for about three months I put a very tight spending/investing freeze on my life because I knew I'd be leaving jobs and moving (I already had the other job lined up). Those savings presumably went toward moving expenses, as your usual savings were insufficient. In the event that you are laid off suddenly, you might find yourself in the same position again, with added unplanned expenses like fees for breaking a lease. Your current plan involves selling investments to cover the gap. Based on your age you have probably only invested in a predominantly positive market, so the chance that you might need to sell investments for cash seems like a reasonable trade-off for the added potential gains. Your perception might change if the markets go south and you are forced to sell into a down market, possibly at a significant loss. You also don't indicate if your investments are currently sufficient to cover an extended period of unemployment. You are taking on a lot of risk under your current plan. Essentially you are trading possible investment gains for flexibility and time. By making small changes like saving at least enough to move as you did previously, you can give yourself time to react to job loss or other unexpected financial need. Rather than give the traditional emergency funds advice, I suggest you look at the broader picture. The total amount of savings/risk is up to you, but you should consider your current savings as insufficient to rely on as a safety net.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1279c055dc6a2e7145425d6b25103af9", "text": "There are two or three issues here. One is, how quickly can you get cash out of your investments? If you had an unexpected expense, if you suddenly needed more cash than you have on hand, how long would it take to get money out of your Scott Trade account or wherever it is? I have a TD Ameritrade account which is pretty similar, and it just takes a couple of days to get money out. I'm hard pressed to think of a time when I literally needed a bunch of cash TODAY with no advance warning. What sudden bills is one likely to have? A medical bill, perhaps. But hey, just a few weeks ago I had to go to the emergency room with a medical problem, and it's not like they demanded cash on the table before they'd help me. I just got the bill, maybe 3 weeks after the event. I've never decided to move and then actually moved 2 days later. These things take SOME planning. Etc. Second, how much risk are you willing to tolerate? If you have your money in the stock market, the market could go down just as you need the cash. That's not even a worst case scenario, extreme scenario. After all, if the economy gets bad, the stock market could go down, and the same fact could result in your employer laying you off. That said, you could reduce this risk by keeping some of your money in a low-risk investment, like some high-quality bonds. Third, you want to have cash to cover the more modest, routine expenses. Like make sure you always have enough cash on hand to pay the rent or mortgage, buy food, and so on. And fourth, you want to keep a cushion against bookkeeping mistakes. I've had twice in my life that I've overdrawn a checking account, not because I was broke, but because I messed up my records and thought I had more money in the account than I really did. It's impossible to give exact numbers without knowing a lot about your income and expenses. But for myself: I keep a cushion of $1,000 to $1,5000 in my checking account, on top of all regular bills that I know I'll have to pay in the next month, to cover modest unexpected expenses and mistakes. I pay most of my bills by credit card for convenience --and pay the balance in full when I get the bill so I don't pay interest -- so I don't need a lot of cushion. I used to keep 2 to 3 months pay in an account invested in bonds and very safe stocks, something that wouldn't lose much value even in bad times. Since my daughter started college I've run this down to less than 1 months pay, and instead of replacing that money I'm instead putting my spare money into more general stocks, which is admittedly riskier. So between the two accounts I have a little over 2 months pay, which I think is low, but as I say, I'm trying to get my kids through college so I've run down my savings some. I think if I had more than 6 months pay in easily-liquidated assets, then unless I expected to need a bunch of cash for something, buying a new house or some such, I'd be transferring that to a retirement account with tax advantages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58888b5f58ffd36b094b03d47933d2d5", "text": "Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "559926fa2f62e66aaf0c0144d3b5aabb", "text": "Find a good commercial bank in the us, or almost any bank in Canada, and exchange cash. Or use an ATM card in Canada; the surcharge is often minimal. (Check with your bank before traveling). You may or may not get a good exchange rate from your hotel desk; some view it as a courtesy, others as a service. You may be able to simply pay with American cash, near the border, but check the exchange rate. Or, for small amounts, you can simply not worry about whether you're getting the best possible exchange rate or not. I visit Canada periodically, and I use a mix of these solutions. Including that last one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fdc0c096584047dd029d2407e86289d", "text": "With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08735a3e09b704995ed935887b845a0f", "text": "I usually get a cashiers check to cover about 90% - 95% of the expected amount (whatever I think is just below my wet-dream-price), and bring the rest in cash. That doesn't require so much cash to be carried. Alternatively you can write a personal check for the exact reminder, or go to the bank for the reminder after the deal is made - with the majority already paid in a cashiers check nobody would disagree.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ad51e8c65e69992273de0ca51db38e6", "text": "I had great difficulty buying my $17,000 truck for cash. One TD Canada Trust branch only let me have $5,000, the other branch down the street only $3,000. They both said they were low on cash. They kept trying to convince me to use a bank draft, but I didn't have a name or total amount as I was still shopping around. I don't think banks carry much cash and it wouldn't take much to clean them out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8", "text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71f3d288c088c22004fbb25fa1ba1cb1", "text": "(in response to last comment to me) Ok. I understand now. Forgive me if I appeared to be splitting hairs. When it comes to understanding, exact wording is important. I keep money at home, enough to not be a frequent ATM user, not enough to imply any distrust of the banking system or preparation for Armageddon. You last comments implies the brochure said 13% keep all their money at home, i.e. have no banking relationship. A recent poll concluded 25% of people had less than $2500 available if they had an issue, such as the need to repair a car, or furnace. From that factoid, it wouldn't surprise me that half of those people have no bank acount at all. Not for lack of trust, but lack of money to deposit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de1c3f369648d07b5b08720b0545286d", "text": "\"The above answers are great. I would only add to the \"\"rainy day\"\" part, that even though the cash provides a good cushion, \"\"a stormy day\"\" could mean even losing those emergency savings to the unignorable randomness that governs the world economy. Though unlikely, what happened to the russian ruble and the latest decision of the swiss cental bank are just two recent reminders that uncertainty must be treated as a constant. I would therefore advise you to invest some of the money in land capable of agriculture. How expensive is land over there in the UK?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7cad9c1053fcf874abf482261d9e85c", "text": "\"It's a real pain in the rear to get cash only from a bank teller (the end result of cutting the card as suggested). There is a self control issue here that, like weight loss, should ultimately be addressed for a psychologically healthy lifestyle. You don't mention a budget here. A budget is one of the first tools necessary for setting spending limits. Categorizing your money into inviolable categories, such as: will force you to look at any purchase in context of your other needs and goals. Note that savings is at the top of the list, supporting the aphorism to, \"\"Pay yourself first.\"\" Make realistic allowances for each budget category, then force yourself to stick to this budget by whatever means necessary. Cash in several envelopes labeled with each category can physically reinforce your priorities (the debit card is usually left at home for now). Roll remaining funds from each month over into the next month to cover irregular larger expenses, such as auto repairs. What sort of investing are we talking about? If you are just talking about retirement savings, an automatic deduction of just $50 to a Roth IRA account at a discount brokerage every pay check is a good start. An emergency fund of 6 months expenses is also common financial advice, and can likewise be built from small automatic deductions. In defense of wise use of plastic, a debit card can be a great retroactive budgeting tool because it records all spending for you. It takes a lot more effort to save and enter receipts for cash, and a compulsive spender without a budget is just as likely to run out of money whether or not he uses plastic. You could keep receipts in the envelope you take the cash out of when you're getting started. If you are so addicted to spending that you must cut your debit card to enforce your budget, at least consider this a temporary measure to get yourself under control. When the bank issues you a new card, re-evaluate this decision and the self control measures you've implemented to see if you've grown enough to keep the card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd29431b9fd6786487aa9b028a61c3fe", "text": "\"Coming from an area that is hurricane prone, and seeing what happens to local businesses during evacuations/power outages/gas shortages, I think what you already have on hand should be sufficient. And it sounds like that's exactly what you're budgeting for. I'd say 2 weeks worth of fuel and food costs, with the budget for each in line with riding out a natural disaster. True \"\"Preppers\"\" would say keep your money in gold buried in the backyard surrounded by land mines, but that's not perhaps what you're looking for. It is not uncommon for gas stations and grocery stores to revert to cash only sales, especially if they're not big chain operations. If the internet is out, or power is spotty, they may not be able to process CCs. Again, think smaller or more rural businesses. I have seen gas stations switch to cash only during gas shortages as well to help limit how much fuel people were buying. $250 should get you through fine unless you drive a tank and need steak every night. You could probably go with less, but it's entirely dependent on your needs. As Joe rightly stated in his answer, if it's desperate enough times that you can't use a CC or debit card, cash may not even be useful to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af8082def21f44a1b9f418f3c16c3302", "text": "\"Trying to figure out how much money you have available each day sounds like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Unless you're extremely tight and you're trying to squeeze by day by day, asking \"\"do I have enough cash to buy food for today?\"\" and so on, you're doing too much work. Here's what I do. I make a list of all my bills. Some are a fixed amount every month, like the mortgage and insurance premiums. Others are variable, like electric and heating bills, but still pretty predictable. Most bills are monthly, but I have a few that come less frequently, like water bills in my area come every 3 months and I have to pay property taxes twice a year. For these you have to calculate how much they cost each month. Like for the water bill, it's once every 3 months so I divide a typical bill by 3. Always round up or estimate a little high to be safe. Groceries are a little tricky because I don't buy groceries on any regular schedule, and sometimes I buy a whole bunch at once and other times just a few things. When groceries were a bigger share of my income, I kept track of what I spent for a couple of months to figure out an average per month. (Today I'm a little richer and I just think of groceries as coming from my spending money.) I allocate a percentage of my income for contributions to church and charities and count this just like bills. It's a good idea to put aside something for savings and/or paying down any outstanding loans every month. Then I add these up to say okay, here's how much I need each month to pay the bills. Subtract that from my monthly income and that's what I have for spending money. I get paid twice a month so I generally pay bills when I get paid. For most bills the due date is far enough ahead that I can wait the maximum half a month to pay it. (Worst case the bill comes the day after I pay the bills from this paycheck.) Then I keep enough money in my checking account to, (a) Cover any bills until the next paycheck and allow for the particularly large bills; and (b) provide some cushion in case I make a mistake -- forget to record a check or make an arithmetic error or whatever; and (c) provide some cushion for short-term unexpected expenses. To be safe, (a) should be the total of your bills for a month, or as close to that as you can manage. (b) should be a couple of hundred dollars if you can manage it, more if you make a lot of mistakes. If you've calculated your expenses properly and only spend the difference, keeping enough money in the bank should fall out naturally. I think it's a lot easier to try to manage your money on a monthly basis than on a daily basis. Most of us don't spend money every day, and we spend wildly different amounts from day to day. Most days I probably spend zero, but then one day I'll buy a new TV or computer and spend hundreds. Update in response to question What I do in real life is this: To calculate my available cash to spend, I simply take the balance in my checking account -- assuming that all checks and electronic payments have cleared. My mortgage is deducted from my checking every month so I post that to my checking a month in advance. I pay a lot of things with automatic charges to a credit card these days, so my credit card bills are large and can't be ignored. So subtract my credit card balances. Subtract my reserve amount. What's left is how much I can afford to spend. So for example: Say I look at the balance in my checkbook today and it's, say, $3000. That's the balance after any checks and other transactions have cleared, and after subtracting my next mortgage payment. Then I subtract what I owe on credit cards. Let's say that was $1,200. So that leaves $1,800. I try to keep a reserve of $1,500. That's plenty to pay my routine monthly bills and leave a healthy reserve. So subtract another $1,500 leaves $300. That's how much I can spend. I could keep track of this with a spreadsheet or a database but what would that gain? The amount in my checking account is actual money. Any spreadsheet could accumulate errors and get farther and farther from accurate values. I use a spreadsheet to figure out how much spending money I should have each month, but that's just to use as a guideline. If it came to, say, $100, I wouldn't make grandiose plans about buying a new Mercedes. If it came to $5,000 a month than buying a fancy new car might be realistic. It also tells me how much I can spend without having to carefully check balances and add it up. These days I have a fair amount of spending money so when, for example, I recently decided I wanted to buy some software that cost $100 I just bought it with barely a second thought. When my spending money was more like $100 a month, lunch at a fast food place was a big event that I planned weeks in advance. (Obviously, I hope, don't get stupid about \"\"small amounts\"\". If you can easily afford $100 for an impulse purchase, that doesn't mean that you can afford $100 five times a day every day.) Two caveats: 1. It helps to have a limited number of credit cards so you can keep the balances under control. I have two credit cards I use for almost everything, so I only have two balances to keep track of. I used to have more and it got confusing, it was easy to lose track of how much I really owed, which is a set up for getting in trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f239e57d65de3a84a8b005dbfba96d6", "text": "It just takes a decent power outage to make it worth having some cash on hand. It's possible that worse things can happen as well -- things that would shut the financial system down or cause bank runs. It is an assumption that you'll always be able to (a) access your money at your bank, either via teller transaction or ATM, and (b) pay with a debit card or credit card. If either (or both) of these abilities are taken away, you'll be glad you have some cash. The amount that you have on hand (how much you want to hedge against these possibilities) is up to you.", "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": "2909bd6926ceb9028f6b06402e3604f7", "text": "\"It's like the lady said, \"\"It's not the size that counts, honey -- it's the wiggle behind it.\"\" Or to be more precise in application of metaphor, it's not the amount of money but *where it goes* that matters. Currency is like blood: It's supposed to circulate, but when it pools into large pockets, well, that's a good sign you're dead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6c65aeccd0683c60a76071f66ac8b74", "text": "Depending on the country, nothing. For example, the US has about $1.3 trillion dollars of cash in circulation. Which means that if you were to burn a million dollars of it, that would be 0.000077% of the circulating cash. But cash is a small portion of the actual money in the US. Only about 8% of all money is in cash, the rest is in other forms of value, which means that you'd only be destroying 0.0000062% of the US's money if you burned a full $1,000,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7db32c122c398bf485a5c10a221af9d", "text": "Generally, I consider it bad etiquette to inconvenience others. I would recommend cash for small purchases. Try to offer as close to the required amount as possible. Don't pay with several dollars worth of change if you can avoid it. You shouldn't need to carry a lot of cash. When you do don't make it obvious.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a", "text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a624586462392a84b59b2656031d90", "text": "Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other 450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere. A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc8f593c174368c4c817cd8ea5e13e90", "text": "Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "217b83c42b6d95a98edc02217db6d947", "text": "The point of buying an index fund is that you don't have to pick winners. As long as the winners are included in the index fund (which can include far more than 500 stocks), you benefit on average because of overall upward historical market performance. Picking only the top 50 capitalized stocks in the S&P 500 does not guarantee you will successfully track the S&P 500 index because the stocks in the tail can account for an outsized amount of overall growth; the top 50 stocks by market capitalization change over time, and these stocks are not necessarily the stocks that perform better. As direct example, the 10 year average annual return for the S&P top 50 is 4.52%, while the 10 year average annual return for the S&P 500 is 5.10%. Issues of trading and balancing to maintain these aside, these indices are not the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b39b705716edf980e950a2be747a7b36", "text": "\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30", "text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d69b994e0a8ea32c8004d3ddd9d6c9a", "text": "A lot of it boils down to these key points:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2", "text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257", "text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&amp;P 500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94307b9b712f8bbbbda71d1a4df93e87", "text": "\"If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around. It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up. By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest \"\"small amounts\"\" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major \"\"transaction fees\"\"? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can. At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up. I don't know that work in the Netherlands. However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that \"\"Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan\"\", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money. In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude. No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash. However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system. In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of \"\"developed countries\"\" will probably die with it. As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid \"\"gambling\"\" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"what you're planning\"\". The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here). As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of \"\"Bogleheads\"\" that has formed around his ideas. There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing. If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc", "text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84af74fe96101aba83d1b6e7c3bc8013", "text": "I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb28cf4e4e06bf5115246d92fa92e80b", "text": "\"There's a huge difference between \"\"can an anverage person make a profit on the stock market\"\" and \"\"can an average person get rich off the stock market\"\". It is certainly possible for an average person to profit, but of course you are unlikely to profit as much as the big Wall Street guys. An S&P 500 index fund, for instance, would be a pretty good way to profit. People with high-powered tools may make a lot of money picking individual stocks, and may even make some choices that help them when the market is down, but it's difficult to see how they could consistently make money over the long term without the S&P 500 also going up. The same applies, to varying extents, to various other index funds, ETFs, and mutual funds. I agree with littleadv that there is no single \"\"right\"\" thing for everyone to do. My personal take is that index funds are a good bet, and I've seen a lot of people take that view on personal finance blogs, etc. (for whatever that's worth). One advantage of index funds that track major indexes (like the S&P 500) is that because they are and are perceived as macro-indicators of the overall economic situation, at least you're in the same boat as many other people. On one level, that means that if you lose money a lot of other investors are also losing money, and when large numbers of people start losing money, that makes governments take action, etc., to turn things around. On another level, the S&P 500 is a lot of big companies; if it goes down, some of those big companies are losing value, and they will use their big-company resources to gain value, and if they succeed, the index goes up again and you benefit. In other words, index funds (and large mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) make investing less about what day-trading wonks focus on, which is trying to make a \"\"hot choice\"\" for a large gain. They make it more about hitching your wagon to an extremely large star that is powered by all the resources of extremely large companies, so that when those companies increase their value, you gain. The bigger the pool of people whose fortunes rise and fall with your own, the more you become part of an investment portfolio that is (I can't resist saying it) \"\"too big to fail\"\". That isn't to say that the S&P 500 can't lose value from time to time, but rather that if it does go down big and hard and stay there, you probably have bigger problems than losing money in the stock market (e.g., the US economy is collapsing and you should begin stockpiling bullets and canned food).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3ad56de12a1e57eee094f285039e940", "text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cd20273e0629c4575627b1c7bed9f18", "text": "\"i know that hedge funds shouldn't be compared with index funds. they do different things. they serve different functions. but when the headline is they are reporting big gains, and then they report that \"\"Ken Griffin’s main Wellington and Kensington funds at Citadel rose almost 7 percent.\"\" YTD, and \"\"Andreas Halvorsen’s Viking and an equity-focused quantitative fund at Renaissance are up more than 9 percent this year through July\"\" as reporting \"\"Big Gains\"\" it's a little silly when an index fund like SCHB is up 10.7% YTD with an ER of 0.03.\"", "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": "7fbd96694deb9cdb0de005f541ce5f6e", "text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f13a3951eaed94fefa8904790031778", "text": "The idea behind investing in index funds is that you will not under perform the market but also at the same time not over perform against the market either. It is meant for those (majority of the investing population) who do not or cannot invest more time in actively researching different investment options. So even considering for a moment that the yields on the index funds will drop significantly in the future, since the fund is supposed to be replication of the whole market itself, the market too can be assumed to be giving significantly lower future yields. In my opinion the question that you ask is confusing/contradictory because, its like pegging the fund performance to an avg and then asking if it will be higher or lower in the future. But rather its always going to be exactly the average, even if the absolute yields turn higher or lower", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd4e8d8a1414e978825d104b7c83b25", "text": "Not better companies, they pick the largest market cap companies which isn't guaranteed to be the best. If they were so much better than there would be a much bigger difference between the S&amp;P 500 and the vanguard total stock market fund: http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=VTSMX&amp;region=usa&amp;culture=en-US But as you can see above there is barely any difference in the gains between S&amp;P and the total stock market fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "140b6fef7c8594dd3f234a710c425ab0", "text": "\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ab5e53638af9a16dfdee22e011d0c8", "text": "If you just took money and banking you should probably be aiming for the sales end of the job. The trading end they're going to want you to know about option spreads (I remember my old Prof said [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes) was always good to know for finance interviews), annuities, financial statement analysis, and all that fun stuff. Either way flaunt your other skills and knowledge as well - accounting, technology, blah blah blah", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c0d471b4475311dc5888b973e1ae327", "text": "\"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. \"\"Short sellers\"\" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "474ac34e146b0ed663a81fd99b692576", "text": "You have to consider a case where you just cannot sell it. Think of it as a bad piece of real estate in Detroit. If there are absolutely no buyers, you cannot sell it (until a buyer shows up)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "485023b813893e67c05daaa3fd16dd2d", "text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "249911fc6739b63123e1096605b8f9b5", "text": "If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efd524a48659c49c9949fa0c942f32ad", "text": "My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41403fc630c3eb80172d3d68c4acb19c", "text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e6d01e0013c0462160dddf726125ad0", "text": "If you had an agreement with your friend such that you could bring back a substantially similar car, you could sell the car and return a different one to him. The nature of shares of stock is that, within the specified class, they are the same. It's a fungible commodity like one pound of sand or a dollar bill. The owner doesn't care which share is returned as long as a share is returned. I'm sure there's a paragraph in your brokerage account terms of service eluding to the possibility of your shares being included in short sale transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb8f3231846c74764f1f7cdf3a068ff6", "text": "Stocks go down and go back up, that's their nature... Why would you sell on a low point? Stocks are a long term investment. If the company is still healthy, it's very likely you'll be able to sell them with a profit if you wait long enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "924c06ef4114ce9a9f421443152b2e88", "text": "\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab30267ef9bb5db72220573b9c1bb73f", "text": "\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6910613137c444c85fb4e476e25872dc", "text": "I have heard of this, but then the broker is short the shares if they weren't selling them out of inventory, so they still want to accumulate the shares or a hedge before EOD most likely - In that case it may not be the client themselves, but that demand is hitting the market at some point if there isn't sufficient selling volume. Whether or not the broker ends up getting all of them below VWAP is a cost of marketing for them, how they expect to reliably get real size below vwap is my question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a99f73816bfe28fe29088b4b48d39f5", "text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3654d20ab2b1704565386801ebed97b", "text": "\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fcbbc6e595a3203c102aaa7b49dfc8", "text": "Yes, you call the broker and tell him to use those shares to deliver to the short position.", "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": "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": "52d6e3a31ea771b143e0a02ff3d3e019", "text": "They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise. It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3dcc1f6bf61328136a491edfcd5109e7", "text": "The important piece here is not necessarily understanding intimate details of biological engineering per se, but rather understanding how the business operates as a singular unit. It is also important to understand the business case for a firm, the evolution of demand for its products/services and the cost of its revenue. To understand a particular sector of the market, you should begin by studying how that sector interacts with and is influenced by the larger market and economy as a whole, both domestic and abroad. From there, you should study individual companies and again see how they interact with one another, the sector, market, etc. Many biotech firms have a different offering and meet different business and consumer demands. Some are near term solutions to existing problems, some long. It is important to see how the firms collectively interact with the consumer base and then differentiate on an individual level.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "722f09fc73049e27e18a4b845b5ef302", "text": "\"In any technical field practitioners have difficulty explaining general/abstract concepts to outsiders. They're accustomed to using a particular set of concepts and ideas that make communication fast and easy between their colleagues, but make communication difficult with outsiders who don't know that language. It's usually easy to come up with a mediocre analogy that communicates the gist of the idea, but finding analogies that capture the complete essence of the concept is extremely hard (and maybe impossible). Have you studied mathematics? Try explaining the concept of a \"\"continuous function\"\" in all its generality without talking about epsilons and deltas or open sets and inverses. You can talk about \"\"drawing a line and not picking up your pencil\"\", but that's not quite what a continuous function is. Likewise, if you've studied law, try explaining what a \"\"security interest\"\" is in its full generality without talking about liens or pledges. You can come up with specific examples, sure, but it'll be tough to find one that captures the whole concept. I'm sure you can come up with examples from whatever field it is you specialise in. Added to this is the problem that the skill-set needed to be a good translator across disciplines isn't really valued in most corporations, including banks. EDIT: I accidentally a word.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "725951659c06b70d8fe02aca12320d51", "text": "I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c892cba300873f5baeab9eae1e8c11f", "text": "I appreciate all the responses, but again, I have NO experience or education in the field. I haven't started any major related college courses yet and do not have a job in the field. I am looking for beginner, introduction level reading material to start reading up on to start understanding the field before I even start school.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b528f29ebaead09e2665fc7058ec1a55", "text": "Institute of Supply Management, specifically their Report on Business. Good forward looking indicator. As far as the weekly report, I'd probably read it, maybe even contribute, but I more of a lurker on this sub. I saw your question and have had some similar experiences so I thought I could help you out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f145642b62c10d7c00945f9740e705c8", "text": "\"1. Transcript: http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/uploads/Smart_Talk_Transcript_Interview_Roberts_v02.pdf Source: http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/Smart_Talk_TV.html 2. (a) \"\"[The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits](http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html)\"\" by Milton Friedman, published on 13 September 1970: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html Mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20030130073709/www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html (b) \"\"[Maximizing shareholder value: The goal that changed corporate America](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html)\"\" by Jia Lynn Yang, published on 26 August 2013: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html 3. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1kpbd6/oligarchic_tendencies_study_finds_only_the/cbrhf0y 4. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/28yio0/tech_industry_job_ads_older_workers_need_not_apply/cifoej1 5. \"\"[The West on the wrong path: In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal -- and harms German interests.](http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/v_detail_tab_print/10308406.html)\"\" by Gabor Steingart, published on 8 August 2014: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/v_detail_tab_print/10308406.html Source: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/10308406.html Via: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/politik-der-eskalation-der-irrweg-des-westens-/10308844.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a63cad28784905e421646aa0f9ceddf3", "text": "Look, I'm not an expert in what assets DB has in transportation companies, or to what industries DB's banks lend money. DB is a multinational corporation that probably has its fingers in hundreds of markets and industries. All I am trying to say is that DB is largely disinterested. Just because DB invests marginally in transportation and logistics does not mean that it should be trusted as a significantly invested (and informed) party, any more than I should be trusted as an interested informed party in regards to technology sector because I own shares of a mutual fund that owns shares of Apple and Alphabet. Regardless of the hearsay component, which is inherently untrustworthy, DB is not a market player such that its word should be taken as anything other than with a grain of salt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe9b65f6806c785675fd32ccb76521a", "text": "I'm a commodity trader. The only degree I had when I started trading was a BS in Bioinformatics from Loyola University Chicago. If you take initiative and can sweet talk your way into an interview, that's all you need.", "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": "98931b8ab84f4d667c8119b8c747c2c6", "text": "\"It is indeed, mostly because the various factors you need to take into account will change depending on the company. An Australian mining co funding a new settlement or harbor has nothing in common with a small European packaging company looking to acquire a competitor, except they both need to raise money. As far as I know, to become \"\"proficient\"\" in that field, the only way is to go through heaps of case studies, which won't be found easily outside of the financial world (sell side research, conversation with experienced buy side analysts/PMs/traders or sell side cap markets pros). It is niche knowledge with a narrow focus and a high potential for value added, hence, not really widely shared. The good news though is that it isn't really that complex, it just takes (lots of) work and being in the right place (internship or entry level position in a market or M&amp;A oriented bank).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93d25391c93587cbf192cc506120e270", "text": "\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb76fc501e4f11446cb4dad03e64910a", "text": "I'd love to do something in the style of Nassim Taleb (fat tails, black swan events, and so forth) He's a mathematical geniues, despite his controversial personality. How useless is the VaR as a risk management tool would be a great topic. Or something regarding policy/regulation (hot topic now).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "737c84266aeb5494df7a0a0cdba9b4a7", "text": "\"I want to elaborate on some of the general points made in the other answers, since there is a lot that is special or unique to the biotech industry. By definition, a high P/E ratio for an industry can stem from 1) high prices/demand for companies in the industry, and/or 2) low earnings in the industry. On average, the biotech industry exhibits both high demand (and therefore high prices) and low earnings, hence its average P/E ratio. My answer is somewhat US-specific (mainly the parts about the FDA) but the rest of the information is relevant elsewhere. The biotech industry is a high-priced industry because for several reasons, some investors consider it an industry with significant growth potential. Also, bringing a drug to market requires a great deal of investment over several years, at minimum. A new drug may turn out to be highly profitable in the future, but the earliest the company could begin earning this profit is after the drug nears completion of Phase III clinical trials and passes the FDA approval process. Young, small-cap biotech companies may therefore have low or negative earnings for extended periods because they face high R&D costs throughout the lengthy process of bringing their first drug (or later drugs) to market. This process can be on the order of decades. These depressed earnings, along with high demand for the companies, either through early investors, mergers and acquisitions, etc. can lead to high P/E ratios. I addressed in detail several of the reasons why biotech companies are in demand now in another answer, but I want to add some information about the role of venture capital in the biotech industry that doesn't necessarily fit into the other answer. Venture capital is most prevalent in tech industries because of their high upfront capital requirements, and it's even more important for young biotech companies because they require sophisticated computing and laboratory equipment and highly-trained staff before they can even begin their research. These capital requirement are only expected to rise as subfields like genetic engineering become more widespread in the industry; when half the staff of a young company have PhD's in bioinformatics and they need high-end computing power to evaluate their models, you can see why the initial costs can be quite high. To put this in perspective, in 2010, \"\"venture capitalists invested approximately $22 billion into nearly 2,749 companies.\"\" That comes out to roughly $7.8M per company. The same year (I've lost the article that mentioned this, unfortunately), the average venture capital investment in the biotech industry was almost double that, at $15M. Since many years can elapse between initial investment in a biotech company and the earliest potential for earnings, these companies may require large amounts of early investment to get them through this period. It's also important to understand why the biotech industry, as a whole, may exhibit low earnings for a long period after the initial investment. Much of this has to do with the drug development process and the phases of clinical trials. The biotech industry isn't 100% dedicated to pharmaceutical development, but the overlap is so significant that the following information is more than applicable. Drug development usually goes through three phases: Drug discovery - This is the first research stage, where companies look for new chemical compounds that might have pharmaceutical applications. Compounds that pass this stage are those that are found to be effective against some biological target, although their effects on humans may not be known. Pre-clinical testing - In this stage, the company tests the drug for toxicity to major organs and potential side effects on other parts of the body. Through laboratory and animal testing, the company determines that the drug, in certain doses, is likely safe for use in humans. Once a drug passes the tests in this stage, the company submits an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. This application contains results from the animal/laboratory tests, details of the manufacturing process, and detailed proposals for human clinical trials should the FDA approve the company's IND application. Clinical trials - If the FDA approves the IND application, the company moves forward with clinical trials in human, which are themselves divided into several stages. \"\"Post-clinical phase\"\" / ongoing trials - This stage is sometimes considered Phase IV of the clinical trials stage. Once the drug has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory agency, the company can ramp up its marketing efforts to physicians and consumers. The company will likely continue conducting clinical trials, as well as monitoring data on the widespread use of the drug, to both watch for unforeseen side effects or opportunities for off-label use. I included such detailed information on the drug development process because it's vitally important to realize that each and every step in this process has a cost, both in time and money. Most biopharm companies won't begin to realize profits from a successful drug until near the end of Phase III clinical trials. The vast R&D costs, in both time and money, required to bring an effective drug through all of these steps and into the marketplace can easily depress earnings for many years. Also, keep in mind that most of the compounds identified in the drug discovery stage won't become profitable pharmaceutical products. A company may identify 5,000 compounds that show promise in the drug discovery stage. On average, less than ten of these compounds will qualify for human tests. These ten drugs may start human trials, but only around 20% of them will actually pass Phase III clinical trials and be submitted for FDA approval. The pre-clinical testing stage alone takes an average of 10 years to complete for a single drug. All this time, the company isn't earning profit on that drug. The linked article also goes into detail about recruitment delays in human trials, scheduling problems, and attrition rates for each phase of the drug development process. All of these items add both temporal and financial costs to the process and have the potential to further depress earnings. And finally, a drug could be withdrawn from the market even after it passes the drug development process. When this occurs, however, it's usually the fault of the company for poor trial design or suppression of data (as in the case of Vioxx). I want to make one final point to keep in mind when looking at financial statistics like the P/E ratio, as well as performance and risk metrics. Different biotech funds don't necessarily represent the industry in the same way, since not all of these funds invest in the same firms. For example, the manager of Fidelity's Select Biotechnology Portfolio (FBIOX) has stated that he prefers to weight his fund towards medium to large cap companies that already have established cash flows. Like all biopharm companies, these firms face the R&D costs associated with the drug development process, but the cost to their bottom line isn't as steep because they already have existing cash flows to sustain their business and accumulated human capital that should (ideally) make the development process more efficient for newer drugs. You can also see differences in composition between funds with similar strategies. The ishares Nasdaq Biotech Index Fund (IBB) also contains medium to large cap companies, but the composition of its top 10 holdings is slightly different from that of FBIOX. These differences can affect any metric (although some might not be present for FBIOX, since it's a mutual fund) as well as performance. For example, FBIOX includes Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (IRWD) in its top 10 holdings, while IBB doesn't. Although IBB does include IRWD because it's a major NASDAQ biotech stock, the difference in holdings is important for an industry where investors' perception of a stock can hinge on a single drug approval. This is a factor even for established companies. In general, I want to emphasize that a) funds that invest more heavily in small-cap biotech stocks may exhibit higher P/E ratios for the reasons stated above, and b) even funds with similar mixes of stocks may have somewhat different performance because of the nature of risk in the biotech industry. There are also funds like Vanguard's Healthcare ETF (VHT) that have significant exposure to the biotech industry, including small-cap firms, but also to major players in the pharmaceutical market like Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc. Since buyouts of small-cap companies by large players are a major factor in the biotech industry, these funds may exhibit different financial statistics because they reflect both the high prices/low earnings of young companies and the more standard prices/established earnings of larger companies. Don't interpret anything I stated above as investment advice; I don't want anything I say to be construed as any form of investment recommendation, since I'm not making one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb0927a7b7d0b22ddb6786217aef90d2", "text": "I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question? That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "793747651d0125a3ed9bc1db898787a9", "text": "Well, it also discusses other traditional valuation techniques such as the economic profit model and it has a chapter on real option valuation. But I would not label those exotic valuation methods. However, I would say that the CFA challenge is much about standard valuation methods due to the limited page limit and considering that there should properly also be an analysis of the external and internal environment to determine the future prospects of the given company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f46c278b5933fbb0e54879108648e3d7", "text": "Well, you should have something that you are passionate about, but you don't necessarily need to choose a coverage right away. Many enter as generalists for IB, buy side and sell side. However, if you are going to create a buy side report, you should tailor it to what sectors or criteria the firm selects from. If the firm you are talking to invests in consumer staples, energy and financials, a tech buy side report makes little sense. At the same time, if they are interested in tech, try and narrow it down. Are they interested in tech mfg such as chips or electronics? Or are they interested in internet companies, service firms, BPOs, etc?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7e2700c8f97122b868a4a0ebfbcc9257", "text": "Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;", "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": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb", "text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087", "text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"", "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": "90b990119812669ab920916a9ac08514", "text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2", "text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83d9ae6ad60870a09c431cbe4c9498a1", "text": "\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f", "text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e63ae5bc64b1b6708549f389a6c615", "text": "International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)", "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": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5", "text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.", "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": "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": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132", "text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9e7ade037d44f4b9595d38d7ea099389", "text": "The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d253535002bfac9d7d58b0e7474d6d61", "text": "PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d", "text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)", "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": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f", "text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e02a87e6118dfc2685339589467995", "text": "The best way to do this would be to exchange the funds into USD and wire the funds to your bank account in the US. It is up to you whether you want to hold USD or Euros. Depends if you plan to invest money in the US.", "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": "d80dc46153b70c74eb54261f370d06aa", "text": "My current favorite service for this kind of transfer is Transferwise. The fees are quite low when compared to the 2.5-3% by high-street banks for currency conversion, to which you need to add the international wire transfer fee, and it's often a lot faster, as they split it into two domestic transfers while the international part + currency conversion happens internally to Transferwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d5eb834909fe217fc1de584ecdacbd", "text": "The best way is to approach your bank and fill out a transfer form to send USD to your US account (if you are visiting India). They will require quite a number of proof (AADHAR, PAN, Passport) copies. Otherwise speak to your bank about how to do a wire transfer from your India A/C to US; after de-moitization regulations have tightened, the best course of action would be to speak to your bank directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "311332c16f52022baed996f2c7cdfc26", "text": "You could use paypal to transfer money. You can pay with paypal and your UK contact could transfer the money to his bank account through paypal. I just received money this way from the US and paid 9 EUR for this. Receiving the funds is as quickly as clicking a button on the paypal site. Transfering it (without costs) took 1-3 days). It is by far the easiest way. If you are uncomfortable using paypal, the other option would be through your own bank account, where you would transfer using IBAN/SWIFT. The SWIFT bank account is usually the IBAN code plus a branch code. Often it is difficult to find the branch code, in that case you can use the IBAN+XXX. In the latter things might be delayed, but I actually haven't noticed the delay yet, since international transfer always seem to take between 1 and 10 days. The international transfering of money costs, except if it is within the EU region. The way to transfer money through Internet banking differs, from bank to bank. They keywords you need to look for are: SEPA, SWIFT, IBAN or international transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a", "text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e", "text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba62c505f4d6f363fe60f7ca52e607cf", "text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55", "text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14a8a916279398241896fc0082a61796", "text": "I don't see how Paypal can stop you from transferring USD funds from your paypal account to a USD account held with a bank. Just tell them to do the transfer to your account. The issue could be around USD onshore / offshore regulation. Is the US government preventing EU citizens from taking USD income offshore? If that's the case then you need a correspondent bank. So in other words, like using your friend. But what you can do is ask your bank who is their correspondent bank in the US, and whether they have the license required to transfer USD funds offshore. So you shift the regulation issues to your bank, and then you have to accept your bank's exchange rate - which is going to be better than paypal, who charges too much for FX transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "324db0b73ebde0b9908675aaec81ed4f", "text": "I'm travelling to the US soon and will transfer to a US $ account from either an € account or £ account. My dad recommends transferring € because it's strong at the moment compared to previously. The £ is weak compared to what it was, but still stronger than €. Which is the best option at the moment?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27ad062be6239cd491e4f3ad3e523df9", "text": "Yes. According to the IRS website, see #2: Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the facts and circumstances. Certain expenses are deemed to be immediate and heavy, including: (1) certain medical expenses; (2) costs relating to the purchase of a principal residence; (3) tuition and related educational fees and expenses; (4) payments necessary to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, a principal residence; (5) burial or funeral expenses; and (6) certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence. Expenses for the purchase of a boat or television would generally not qualify for a hardship distribution. A financial need may be immediate and heavy even if it was reasonably foreseeable or voluntarily incurred by the employee. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii))", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0454eab886266d6596c9f63207e29092", "text": "I would guess that before the spin-off, more money would be available In my experience the reverse is true. The finance folks go into overdrive tightening everything up so that budget forecasts for the transition period are as accurate and predictable as possible. This can be true 6 months out, 12 months out, etc - depending on the size and complexity of the business. So in terms of when to renegotiate, I think approaching the issue after the dust has settled is more realistic. Make sure you know your numbers as per normal and just remember that after the spin-off has occurred it's a business like any other business: if you are in position to negotiate (and reasonably expect) a raise then the fact that they spun off recently - a month or two before - is meaningless to the negotiation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff28ccfa4741ecc38a0bab88447897f9", "text": "gef05 hit it on the head -- the books get frozen when mergers/spinoffs happen. I worked as an IT guy at a company whose mission was operating call centers -- and they didn't bother paying the phone bill! Why? the terms were already agreed upon, and the powers that be were waiting for final legal sign-off. Try to figure out who the leaders are going to be after the spinoff, and start politicking them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd013efa68d1fa929449e967acc66a0", "text": "\"Corporate restructuring makes everything a flux, so you might as well revisit some core fundamental questions. Here's how to do this professionally: Start floating your CV now. Line up interviews in competing companies. Attend to them. Score a job offer, and have it put into writing, with exact salary, which should be at least 10%++ of your current one. Take a clear empty page, and write on top: \"\"Business value provided\"\". Put down your major contributions, and achievements. Wherever possible, put the company's expected dollar value near to it. For bonus points, sum it up on the bottom, and minus your current salary. Difference is \"\"Profit provided directly to the company's bottom line\"\". Float this to your manager's desk. At this position, you have only one fundamental question to your boss: \"\"match or pass?\"\" :) A corporate spin-off is a good time to do this: 1, to ensure, that your position will not be made redundant; 2, if it is, you have a backup plan. If the parent company's \"\"getting rid of you\"\", however, there are even more fundamental questions you might want to ask yourself: is this really a profitable division, or merely a loss leader? Does this company have a future, and the adequate growing options for you, personally? To answer these questions, you must have an opportunity cost estimation; and for that, you must have second (and preferably, third) options -hence, the strategy above. To conclude, the best time to do your job research is every other month; and the best time to ask for a raise is always now :) Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "442ed4cce3fedeeeb99c73feb326f40b", "text": "Not necessarily. You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins. Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin. Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5883594212907d5df467c9d29e54bb54", "text": "\"Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not \"\"Co-Founders\"\" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them \"\"founding employee\"\" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8c4f4842defdda4013445eca3c6b7e5", "text": "Wrong on so many counts. I have worked with many start-ups, and the well-run ones have all payed their employees good salaries. They also have mostly older employees (30+) with families and kids, and work reasonable hours. If you are worried about some VC guy, then don’t let them scam you. It is their job to squeeze the most equity for the least amount. As long as whoever in charge knows what they are doing, this will never happen. Remember, first and foremost, it is a business, and if you see it not making money, or not having the possibility of making money, then don’t work there. Know what you are getting paid, and know your equity. It can work out great. I know a lot of people who have ridiculous amounts of cash working at start-ups, and they all stick together and use their experience to have repeat successes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c326b2ea3f1b5e375bbd90af5d2132", "text": "\"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit. Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order. Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees. This is another \"\"step function.\"\" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8da34da6ec8ad4ad3b909968309d6816", "text": "\"What makes a \"\"standard\"\" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, \"\"a good raise is 5%\"\" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as \"\"standard\"\". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of \"\"we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year\"\". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, \"\"We just don't have the budget to give you a raise\"\", the key question is, \"\"Is that true?\"\" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for \"\"we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year\"\". Or it might be a euphemism for \"\"you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up\"\". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4607c8cf32b080fd9ff0937ab8f99e2", "text": "Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid. In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27e0430f759036c11f1f3a188d4dbd52", "text": "\"This would never apply for tax \"\"brackets\"\". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the \"\"brackets\"\" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9afd809b19ea026a97e23618f37748", "text": "I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise. One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65acc04ee19efe73f16b1ede4223dbd8", "text": "Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f15564a7134221d0d97e3c9e7fd2100", "text": "That's a simple overhead calculation. For secretary how much time is this person going to potentially save verses how much time I spend on those tasks. If secretary pay rate is near, equal, or less than what I spend in my own hourly rate it makes sense to hire. If it is not, do not hire, you don't want to loose money on overhead or have people sitting around doing nothing. Brand Manager is more complicated because it involves speculation and projection. I would want some kind of trial solution before a more permanent solution was decided on. For example, if brand manager is renewing my brand image what do I anticipate that new image will bring in additional revenue, or alternatively, what new markets will my product now be able to tap into that it was not able to tap into before. Then I would do the simple sales calculation of how much revenue would I need to expect to cover the cost of the overhead and project to justify viability. Then simply ask the question of if it is reasonable to expect those kinds of returns from this person or project. In business there is risk. There's really two ways to look at risk, big risk = big reward and screw the consequences if we fail, or make sure that risk is diminished as much as possible before making a decision. I would say most start-ups begin with big risk = big reward and then evolve into diminishing risk as much as possible. Both have many good and many bad examples. Most involve businesses dead before they figure out how to diminish risk, or in extreme examples wall street people diminishing risk by cheating the system, but we aren't discussing ethics.", "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": "1a0d11aa89ee26bfe0547b42c454dc15", "text": "\"Now, my own answer: If you join and receive equity, do the 1/3 split as a max. Truthfully, if it were my company, I would try to negotiate with you to only give you 15%--20% because as an advisor you're not going to be involved in executing the idea to turn it into a business. If you contribute capital, do it as a loan. End of story. You don't own more because you financed growth... you shouldn't. The growth will have come because of the collective performance of the whole team. You should get paid back at a \"\"fair\"\" rate for your investment... if the company can handle it, I would argue something like 10% interest is reflective of the risk you're taking with your money. If the finances are so tight that the interest repayment isn't an option, do the math behind what you should be paid for the loan in interest, and convert that to shares or equity somehow, and get paid back for the invested capital. If the company can't repay your loan, the business model may not be sound enough, or developed enough, to be investing in to begin with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf1a02496d303b417c67102f63a468a", "text": "And to your point, the same thing that was said above applies - when younger people bounce often and end up being at inflated rates, they are more often the first to get cut when cost changes need to be applied. Seen it happen all the time in multiple companies. Sometimes it's okay to work up to a good position, than to get overpaid for being an underperformer.", "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": "92672dcaf9b5d74a175578d2a4403c40", "text": "Note that after 15 years, the tax exemption is €36800 per person, which includes both the principal you desposited and the accumulated interest. It's possible that you will have a higher balance than this in your savings account at this point and would still owe tax on the interest accumulated above the exempted amount. After 20 years, you get the full tax exemption, the lesser of your portion of the mortgage debt and €162000 per person. In direct answer to your questions: I'm not aware of any exceptions to the 15 year rule for allowing the accumulated interest to be tax free when selling your house. If your accumulated interest is low enough, you might consider just paying the tax on it as it would give you the most flexibility in choosing a new mortgage. This is why I asked about more details about your interest rate and how long the mortgage has been running. It may, however, possible to couple the savings account to a new ABN AMRO Bankspaar mortgage when you buy a new house. You should check your mortgage terms and conditions. For example, Section 23.12 in ABN AMRO's terms and conditions from 2010 describes this. See here. It is probably best, however, to speak directly with either your mortgage broker or with a mortgage adviser with ABN AMRO. If your mortgage broker still worked on commission (aflsuitprovisie) when you closed your mortgage, then they are obligated to assist you with this type of question. In order to qualify for the tax exemption, you must use the saved value to pay off debt on your primary residence (eigenwoningschuld). Decoupling the savings account entirely from a mortgage will disqualify you from the tax advantages. You will owe tax on all accumulated interest.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9ddaeefedd377e0765564f49d50c76b3", "text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f6a02a5a583f27af3c0b961b9a463ac", "text": "When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca", "text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0", "text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0aa6e64d4cfe4bfc6df057d89b1b80f", "text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13fc9e700600ca98feae64f30ff809cc", "text": "Technically, the difference between dividends and growth ought to be that dividends can be reinvested in stocks other than the one that paid them, which is a definite advantage if you actually have a strategy. Dividend -paying stocks used to be preferred for exactly that reason, back in the days when fewer people were directly playing in the market and more knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, getting a periodic dividend from a stock whose price is relatively steady isn't as exciting a game as watching your stock's value bounce around and (hopefully) creep upward on a second-by-second basis. Those who are thinking in gambling terms rather than investment terms -- or who think they can beat the pros at high frequency trading, comment withheld -- want the latter, and have been putting a lot of pressure on companies to operate in the latter mode. That doesn't make it better -- certainly not for the longer-term investors -- just more fashionable. And fashion often means getting stuck with something impractical because everyone else is doing it. On this, I second Scrooge: Humbug!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd", "text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea063d3946d8ef4e5bcd5d26d2cf5a0f", "text": "There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0575e37ec55ce1ee8435c931fd40b798", "text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fad44c3ea1cacb905d17f2bf8d64e", "text": "Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa8e0c64174269d2bd8ace9c51271d15", "text": "The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40d016119203be1005fd7d71ed16f8c4", "text": "\"Dividends are one way to discriminate between companies to invest in. In the best of all worlds, your investment criteria is simple: \"\"invest in whatever makes me the most money on the timeline I want to have it.\"\" If you just follow that one golden rule, your future financial needs will be taken care of! Oh... you're not 100% proof positive certain which investment is best for you? Good. You're mortal. None of us magically know the best investment for us. We wing it, based on what information we can glean. For instance, we know that bonds tend to be \"\"safer\"\" than stocks, but with a lower return, so if something calls itself a bond, we treat it differently than we treat a stock. So what sorts of information do we have? Well, think of the stock market linguistically. A dividend is one way for a company to communicate with their stockholders in the best way possible: their pocketbooks. There's some generally agreed upon behaviors dividends have (such as they don't go down without some good reason for it, like a global recession or a plan to acquire another company that is well-accepted by the stockholders). If a company starts to talk in this language, people expect them to behave a certain way. If they don't, the stock gets blacklisted fast. A dividend itself isn't a big deal, but a dividend which isn't shunned by a lot of smart investors... that can be a big deal. A dividend is a \"\"promise\"\" (which can be broken, of course) to cash out some of the company's profits to its shareholders. Its probably one of the older tools out there (\"\"you give investors a share of the profits\"\" is pretty tried and true). It worked for many types of companies. If you see a dividend, especially one which has been reliable for many years, you can presume something about the type of company they are. Other companies find dividend is a poor tool to accomplish their goals. That doesn't mean they're better or worse, simply different. They're approaching the problem differently. Is that kind of different the kind you want in your books? Maybe. Companies which aren't choosing to commit a portion of their profits to shareholders are typically playing a more aggressive game. Are you comfortable that you can keep up with how they're using your money and make sure its in your interests? It can be harder in these companies where you simply hold a piece of paper and never get anything from them again.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b6204d3f9eabcbb760debffba4fbe26", "text": "Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f", "text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.", "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": "0d133fdf8af7ed7e81a929aefa9fb736", "text": "The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af4679f4a8afd4be7e354e3d1b5d4410", "text": "Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc. Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a441a35f5ea8b2a32692d8b7d32d6a20", "text": "\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8522a4026f4105bb39f46152a4d3b71f", "text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccc65bbb1614f209f9f526eccf3e7119", "text": "\"The term you're looking for is yield (though it's defined the other way around from your \"\"payout efficiency\"\", as dividend / share price, which makes no substantive difference). You're simply saying that you want to buy high-yield shares, which is a common investment strategy. But you have to consider that often a high-yielding share has a reason for the high yield. You probably don't want to buy shares in a company whose current yield is 10% but will go into liquidation next year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4930ad8b4477424986d9bb08fd76f2b", "text": "The risk in a divident paying stock can come from 2 sources. The business of the company, or the valuation of the stock at the time you buy. The business of the company relates to how they are running things, the risks they are taking with the company, innovations in their pipeline, and their competitive landscape. You can find all sorts of examples of companies that paid nice dividends but didn't end so well... Eastman Kodak, Enron, Lehman brothers, all used to pay very nice dividends at some point... On the other hand you have the valuation. The company is running great, but the market has unrealistic expectations about it. Think Amazon and Yahoo back in 2001... the price was way too high for the company's worth. As the price of a stock goes up, the return that you get from its future cash flows (dividends) goes down (and viceversa). If you want to go deep into the subject, check out this course from Chicago U they spend a lot of time talking about dividends, future returns from stocks and the risk rewards of finding stocks by methods such as these.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55765f7687c9396197d73e17d5c30658", "text": "Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "283fc5c844dfed1d7a837cf58c8a42b5", "text": "The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccda6b515f09fe101f3d7e6ccb0150d", "text": "You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7109782443dbe86b480761ec2425af6a", "text": "Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.", "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": "5d7fd2ab75b51e221d3095eeb756341c", "text": "So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de3465af8fb591518d665a2084219520", "text": "One's paycheck typically has a YTD (year to date) number that will end on the latest check of the year. I am paid bi-weekly, and my first 2012 check was for work 12/25 - 1/7. So, for my own balance sheet, brokerage statements and stock valuations end 12/31, but my pay ended 12/24. And then a new sheet starts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35124c3aee792df13fe3a69a181155f4", "text": "\"Here is where I am confused. On the income statement I am looking at it has a line item in cogs that is \"\"change in jobs in progress\"\". Change in JIP = (Starting raw materials, wip, and finished goods) - (Ending raw materials, wip, and finished goods) for the accounting period. From what I researched cost of goods manufactured is added to cogs: \"\"The formula for the cost of goods manufactured is the costs of: direct materials used + direct labor used + manufacturing overhead assigned = the manufacturing costs incurred in the current accounting period + beginning work-in-process inventory - ending work-in-process inventory. A manufacturer's cost of goods sold is computed by adding the finished goods inventory at the beginning of the period to the cost of goods manufactured and then subtracting the finished goods inventory at the end of the period.\"\" So it isnt wip that is in the income statement it is change in inventory. Why do they include the \"\"change of inventory\"\" in cogs? Wont this just be material and labor that should be in for the next accounting period cog calculation?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f48d2497330bc421990b575863046a8", "text": "In accrual accounting, you account for items on the income statement when the service has been delivered - in this case, the service that your employees are providing your company. Because of this, you incur the expense in the fiscal year that your employees work for you. So, you incur the expense, and net income decreases by (1-t)*wage expense. Net income decreases, so owners' equity decreases; to balance you credit wages payable. Once the wages are paid, you decrease the liabilities side (wages payable) and offset it with a Cash change on the assets side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04468a78b190230604ded783ba3cbc6c", "text": "There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15.", "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": "9b53d8cfbac1038571e8e1e2069446af", "text": "There are several questions to answer before help can be given. How much revenue did you have this year? What is expected revenue growth for next few years? Are you operating as a sole proprietor, partnership or corporation? If a corporation did you maintain your books on the cash basis or accrual? I recommend you seek a CPA not a bookkeeper. And, don't wait until end of year to fund one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f73770a2da33ab40245475e5bc5ee82", "text": "\"You may want, or at least be thinking of, the annualized method described in Pub 505 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html#en_US_2015_publink1000194669 (also downloadable in PDF) and referred to in Why are estimated taxes due \"\"early\"\" for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? . This doesn't prorate your payments as such; instead you use your income and deductions etc for each of the 3,2,3,4-month \"\"quarters\"\" to compute a prorated tax for the partial year, and pay the excess over the amount already paid. If your income etc amounts are (nearly) the same each month, then this computation will result in payments that are 3,2,3,4/12ths of 90% of your whole-year tax, but not if your amounts vary over the year. If you do use this method (and benefit from it) you MUST file form 2210 schedule AI with your return next filing season to demonstrate that your quarterly computations, and payments, met the requirements. You need to keep good per-period (or per-month) records of all tax-relevant amounts, and don't even try to do this form by hand, it'll drive you nuts; use software or a professional preparer (who also uses software), but I'd expect someone in your situation probably needs to do one of those anyway. But partnership puts a wrinkle on this. As a partner, your taxable income and expense is not necessarily the cash you receive or pay; it is your allocated share of the partnership's income and expenses, whether or not they are distributed to you. A partnership to operate a business (like lawyers, as opposed to an investment partnership) probably distributes the allocated amounts, at least approximately, rather than holding them in the partnership; I expect this is your year-end draw (technically a draw can be any allowed amount, not necessarily the allocated amount). In other words, your husband does earn this money during the year, he just receives it at the end. If the year-end distribution (or allocation if different) is significant (say more than 5% of your total income) and the partnership is not tracking and reporting these amounts (promptly!) for the IRS quarters -- and I suspect that's what they were telling you \"\"affects other partners\"\" -- you won't have the data to correctly compute your \"\"quarterly\"\" taxes, and may thus subject yourself to penalty for not timely paying enough. If the amount is reasonably predictable you can probably get away with using a conservative (high-side) guess to compute your payments, and then divide the actual full-year amounts on your K-1 over 12 months for 2210-AI; this won't be exactly correct, but unless the partnership business is highly seasonal or volatile it will be close enough the IRS won't waste its time on you. PS- the \"\"quarters\"\" are much closer to 13,9,13,17 weeks. But it's months that matter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f5d0b22cf78bf5aa71207de175bdba3", "text": "Companies typically release their earnings before the market opens, and then later host an analyst/investor conference call to discuss the results. Here's a link to an interesting article abstract on the subject: Disclosure Rules For Earnings Releases And Calls | Bowne Digest. Excerpt: In the aftermath of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC changed regulations to bring quarterly earnings announcements in line with the generally heightened sensitivity to adequate disclosure. New regulations required that issuers file or furnish their earnings press releases on Form 8-K and conduct any related oral presentations promptly thereafter, to avoid a second 8-K. [...] Sample from a news release by The Coca Cola Company: ATLANTA, September 30, 2009 - The Coca-Cola Company will release third quarter and year-to-date 2009 financial results on Tuesday, October 20, before the stock market opens. The Company will host an investor conference call at 9:30 a.m. ( EDT ), on October 20. [...] Sample from a news release by Apple, Inc.: CUPERTINO, California—January 21, 2009—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2009 first quarter ended December 27, 2008. The Company posted record revenue of [...] Apple will provide live streaming of its Q1 2009 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime®, Apple’s standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at [...]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "738c48a8d03569e6abeebbf24f617c67", "text": "* 2007 Accountant communicate with bosses about the ethical problem and possible illegal practices * Next years, Accountant work in complicated work environment ending with superiors retaliated against him for speaking out * 2012 Accountant hand over to IRS, and OSHA, a 137 pages of document proving how Cat swift billions in profit to Switzerland to avoid U.S. taxes * 2012 Accountant quits company * 2013 IRS concluded on abusive tax and demanded $ 2 billion * 2014 a U.S. Senate investigative committee, grilled executives and concluded the company had avoided taxes on more than $8 billion in revenue. * February 2017, “I love Caterpillar,” President Orange Donald Clown says. * March , 2017, the IRS, Department of Commerce, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. raid Caterpillar headquarters, warehouses and datacenter. * IRS standards payment is 15% to 30% of what it collects.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca8376b3a0efedcb0554d82b6e895514", "text": "Every class my Finance Prof writes a number on the board, I have no idea what it is other than it is related to the field of Finance. But I have it on good authority that it will be a bonus question on the final exam to find out what it is. Date | # Written ---|--- Oct. 12 | 13 Oct. 17 | 15 Oct. 19| 15 Oct. 24 | 15 Oct. 26 | 15 Nov. 2 | 11 If anyone knows please help a brother out. Dates are North American.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebd7b8b4d4c3a2ee667131466eae36f4", "text": "I second @DumbCoder, every company seems to have its own way of displaying the next dividend date and the actual dividend. I keep track of this information and try my best to make it available for free through my little iphone web app here http://divies.nazabe.com", "title": "" }, { "docid": "481b8423ba7e31615b1775bafe7d3029", "text": "I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct. The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days. If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks. Hope this clears things up!", "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": "6ac32be0cbf98c69d5b81fc6ed9aab89", "text": "Any accounting software should be able to handle this. When you invoice them, set the invoice date to the date of the event. Then receive a partial payment against that invoice. This will cause your accounting software to display the service income in the correct period as well. So if you sent them invoice for August 7, 2014 event on May 5th, 2014 and they gave you $500 due, you would see this Income in August ($500 on Cash basis, $1000 on Accrual basis. When you received the other $500 in August, you would see $1000 for both methods). You would not see any income in May, when you created the invoice. This is better for revenue matching with the correct period. When you send them same invoice (say 30 days before the event), Set the software to show payments already received (it seems that most online accounting software will do this by default). Here is an example in Freshbooks. Here is an example in Xero: Seems they both display information on when you can expect payment on the their respective dashboards. In the Desktop version of Quickbooks (which I use a lot), it will not show the balance of the customer by default on an invoice. You will have to modify the invoice template. There are more details on that here. In Desktop version of Quickbooks, you can look at Cash Flow Forecast report to see the expected amount coming in. I hope that helps and good luck.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "43e559617382b38b2b11b0f4082a6a56", "text": "\"It becomes illegal when it is both material and nonpublic information. Material being defined as: Information that you would want and significantly alters the perception of the stock. To your point -- \"\"materiality\"\" is really up to the courts Nonpublic This is a little easier to define, but need to be careful if the information is disclosed selectively -- ie to just a small number of investment analysts -- this may still be nonpublic There is also an exception to this -- Mosaic Theory - This is the research you are referring to where the analyst calls up suppliers, etc and obtains information that is nonmaterial (wouldn't move the price of the security) but using experience and combined with public information creates something that is meaningful and could move the price of the security. This is perfectly legal. Material examples:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0683565621aff565ab849e4edfad786a", "text": "\"You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the \"\"emergency asset injunctions\"\" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of \"\"illegal insider trading\"\" compared to \"\"having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information\"\" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f03383a88a8140d54337e9b3816d3390", "text": "\"The Indian regulator (SEBI) has banned trading in 300 shell companies that it views as being \"\"Shady\"\", including VB Industries. According to Money Control (.com): all these shady companies have started to rally and there was a complaint to SEBI that investors are getting SMSs from various brokerage firms to invest in them This suggests evidence of \"\"pump and dump\"\" style stock promotion. On the plus side, the SEBI will permit trading in these securities once a month : Trading in these securities shall be permitted once a month (First Monday of the month). Further, any upward price movement in these securities shall not be permitted beyond the last traded price and additional surveillance deposit of 200 percent of trade value shall be collected form the Buyers which shall be retained with Exchanges for a period of five months. This will give you an opportunity to exit your position, however, finding a buyer may be a problem and because of the severe restrictions placed on trading, any bid prices in the market are going to be a fraction of the last trade price.\"", "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": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee090dbbfbf380955b2fa0d0ec45947", "text": "sweet, a Nazi analogy. And here I thought I'd *never* see one of those on the internet! A better example would be to arrest gun manufacturers because they created guns that were used in murders. Chances are this program was created for legitimate reasons. There's nothing illegal about using software to buy stock. There is, however, rules against doing things like this to influence the market. You're equating some software developers whose software was used illegally to a group of people who committed genocide. Think about that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a47bddacca3f0846c65b31dee5118f", "text": "\"There are quite a few regulations on \"\"Insider Trading\"\". Blackouts are one of the means companies adopt to comply with \"\"Insider Trading\"\" regulations, mandating employees to refrain from selling/buying during the notified period. Once you leave the employment: So unless there is an urgent need for you to sell/buy the options, wait for some time and then indulge in trade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e8790f3d77d44502c61766e237945b", "text": "(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading. I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol). I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that). I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb1860fb6afb16093dbe499d9c96ac6d", "text": "pump and dump is a common Illegal practice of boiler room operations. It refers to the talking a stock up, both through word of mouth as well as selling shares to unwitting buyers. I fail to see much difference between that practice and this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ee33eae5c655fc944c90559949cff5", "text": "Arguably the money made or lost on the particular stock in question wouldn't have happened without the story. The AIs are just taking advantage of market conditions caused by the story. The person who planted the story bought the stock prior to the story being dropped and sold before the stock dropped back down, which is illegal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dfe1333439370985d38d5a8a2ca24a3", "text": "\"The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows \"\"inside\"\" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a \"\"blind\"\" selling program on a\"\"schedule.\"\") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that \"\"insiders\"\" ARE better informed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da058ebde0a2b5ea058c7391f620ca07", "text": "\"Secret formulas are legal, \"\"privileged information\"\" is not. And that may be the whole point. People are allowed to trade stocks profitably if doing so results only from their skill. A \"\"secret formula\"\" (for evaluating information) is part of that skill. But having \"\"privileged information\"\" is not considered skill. It is considered an unfair, illegal advantage. Because company officials (and others) with privileged information are 1) not permitted to trade stocks while that information is privileged and 2) are not allowed to share that information with others. Inevitably, some do one or the other, which is why they are prosecuted. \"\"Raj\"\" took the process to new highs (or lows). He not only \"\"dealt\"\" in privileged information, he PAID for it. Anything from a new car or house to $500,000 a year in cash. In essence, he had a bunch of strategically placed \"\"spies\"\" inside or close to corporations including one on the board of Goldman Sachs, \"\"selling out\"\" their companies, and thereby practicing a form of corporate \"\"treason.\"\"\"", "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": "49116813bdaca2a97e43c13f41359d5c", "text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?", "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": "739b7375d58d91d8094464eb6a7b3760", "text": "\"So is knowledge of unannounced products simply not considered material nonpublic information? Well \"\"material\"\" is relative but it certainly is nonpublic information. And trading based on that information would likely be considered illegal if it is actually material. Many companies require that employees with material non-public info get stock trades approved by their legal department. This protects not only the employee but the employer from SEC scrutiny. If the legal department determines that the employee has non-public info that is the genesis of the stock trade, they might deny the request. In many cases these employees receive stock through ESPP, ISO and/or RSUs and often sell while in possession of information about unannounced products. Just receiving stock as part of as part of a compensation program would not be illegal, provided it was part of a normal compensation package and not deliberately awarded in advance of these types of events. Selling or outright buying stock (including RSUs) with that kind of information would certainly be scrutinized. An employee is granted RSUs, they vest 7 months before announcement of a new product. The employee knows the exact specifications of the product. If they sell the vested stock before the announcement would this constitute insider trading or not? Why? The law is not meant to prevent people from investing in their own company just because they know future plans. So knowledge of an announcement 7 months out may not be considered material. If, however, you sold stock the day (or a week) before some announcement that caused the stock to fall, then that would probably be scrutinized. Or, if you traded shortly before an announcement of a new, revolutionary product that was set to be released in seven months, and the stock rose, then you might be scrutinized. So there is a lot of gray area, but remember that the spirit of the law is to prevent people from benefiting unfairly with non-public information. It would be hard to prove that gaining on a stock trade 7 months before a product announcement would be considered \"\"unfair gain\"\". A lot can happen in that time.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "efce77f31deaafbffcf362e30aea9e0d", "text": "\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \"\"real estate.\"\" Second of all, if by \"\"housing\"\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18af34075798769df46f3517dde7d05", "text": "To round out something that @Chris W. Rea pointed out, the business that a REIT is in will be either A) Equity REIT... property management, B) mortgage REIT... lending, or C) hybrid REIT (both). A very key point about why REITs broadly have been struggling lately, (and this would show up in the REIT indices/ETFs you've linked to,) is linked to the REIT business models. For an Equity REIT, they borrow money at the going rate (let's say ~4.5% for commercial-scale loans), and use that to take out mortgages on physical properties. If a property rents for $15K per month, and they can take out a $1.8 million loan at $9,000 per month, then their business is around managing maintenance, operating expenses, and taxes on that $6,000 per month margin. For a mortgage REIT, they borrow funds as a highly qualified borrower, (again let's say ~4.5%), and lend those funds back out at a higher rate. The basic concept is that if you borrow $10 million at 4.5% for 30 years, you need to pay it back at $50,668 per month. If you can lend it out reliably at 5%, you collect $53,682 per month... a handy $3,000 per month. The cheaper you can get money at (below 4.5%) and the higher you can lend it at (above 5%), the better your margin is. The worry is that both REIT business models are very highly dependent on the cost of borrowing money. With the US Fed changing its bond-buying/QE/stimulus activity, the prevailing interest rates are likely to go up. While this has its benefits (inflation), it also will make it more expensive for these types of companies to do business.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "478a4f74037de66e9ee99150366f6030", "text": "Housing prices are set by different criteria. It can become memoryless the same as the stock if the criteria used to set its price in the past is no longer valid. For example, take Phoenix or Las Vegas - in the past these were considered attractive investments because of the economical growth and the climate of the area. While the climate hasn't changed, the economical growth stopped not only there but also in the places where people buying the houses lived (which is all over the world really). What happened to the housing market? Dropped sharply and stays flat for several years now at the bottom. So it doesn't really matter if the house was worth $300K in Phoenix 5 years ago, you can only sell it now for ~$50K, and that's about it. The prices have been flat low for several years and the house price was $50K, but does it mean its going to stay so? No, once economy gears up, the prices will go up as well. So its not exactly memory-less, but the stocks are not memory-less as well. There is correlation between the past and the future performance. If the environment conditions are similar - the performance is likely to be similar. For stocks however there's much more environment conditions than the housing market and its much harder to predict them. But even with the housing people were burnt a lot on the misconception that the past performance correlates to the future. It doesn't necessarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c000a032309b520eb3ac054a8cc66a0d", "text": "They lost money on an absolute basis. They got slammed as a hedge fund because its returns are less than 0%, not because they underperformed relative to the market. Hedge funds aren't mean to outperform a benchmark. They are meant to preserve (and grow) your funds. That's why long only houses are happy about their -15% when the market is down 30%, but a hedge fund should be above 0%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80923207a6f183be4e8cc88ae83b06f9", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354", "text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a5ce7886ff8ef284eec9051fa22bd58", "text": "Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43740123fa97c27cf5e4af82928e3592", "text": "But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold. So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d59301acd1b942e879c09beefec5df5d", "text": "tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent: Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right. By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality: As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f141bf33c2f9103e671ece71f28922bb", "text": "Low volatility trading tends to be a hallmark of the late summer as Wall Street by and large goes on summer vacation. When all those traders and hedge fund managers return to work full-tilt in September, the market tends to become more volatile - either upwards or downwards. If you are wondering why these months have been particularly poor relative to others, than I don't think anyone knows the reason why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb033d7bb61067cb9b8e2b2a79b2ed73", "text": "Most likely crazy bad, given all the news rolling out by October, mainly the fed meetings and government debt ceiling. Those big issues will scare the market imo. Nothing bad may actually happen, but the markets do not care what actually happens, but what they THINK is going to happen. I might take up some long TVIX/VXX positions myself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d66880aced300bb4bcaf0bfbcd4e8d", "text": "\"I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of \"\"I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent\"\" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge).\"", "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": "3fd1f453fdf50f3d43731985b8d1c9bb", "text": "Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5", "text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ada9d0a627c6197e572ac50d0b4cf55d", "text": "Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c51982782aa3d8d08ddcc69360b72bf1", "text": "Keeping your “big emergency” fund in stocks if you have 12 months income saved is OK. However you should keep your “small emergency” fund in cash. (However I find that even my stock broker accounts have some cash in them, as I like to let the dividends build up enough to make the dealing charges worthwhile. You don’t wish to be forced to sell at a bad time due to your boiler needing replacing or your car breaking down. However if you lost your job in the same week that your boiler broke down and your car needed replacing then being forced to sell stocks at a bad time is not much of an issue. Also if you are saving say 1/3 of your income each month and you have a credit card with large unused credit limit that is paid of each month, then most “small emergency” that are under 2/3 of your monthly income can be covered on the credit card with little or no interest charges. One option is to check you bank balance on the day after you are paid, and if it is more than 2x your monthly income, then move some of it to long term savings, but only if you tend to spend a lot less then you earn most months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca175cc37562842565cc140b7fae1c65", "text": "\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482", "text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1", "text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b3cdc8f3766cb93bb00036450b813a", "text": "As the record date is 7th August, you need to hold stocks on the 7th August closing. You need not hold it till 2nd Sept. The list as taken on 7th August would be processed and instructions given to Bank and the dividends credited by 1st Sept. Edit: To Clarify Victor's comment Typically from the time one sells the stocks to the time it actually gets transferred has a clearing cycle. Most stock exchanges have 2 or 3 days cycles. i.e. if I sell the stock today, it is still in my name. The money is still with the buyer. On Day 1, the positions are arrived at. On Day 2 the stock gets credited to the buyer and the funds gets credit to seller. As the question was specific whether to hold the stock till 7th or 22nd Sept, my initial answer was simple. The illustration by Victor is more accurate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efb02741e131bbeb35fabd25c9d5edb7", "text": "\"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities Investor Protection Act (\"\"SIPA\"\"), are only available in the context of a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to the \"\"custody\"\" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer, within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S. broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7757af949d34fb59fec0397d70582f1", "text": "\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f5b5bd6ddbadb3f7c70481c5b68139", "text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123b23a493b497031a0d631a994c11dc", "text": "The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e767c26bb5156cea063ee0911642690", "text": "\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a", "text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceb0169d967e05a1d9e2cb1df64a3729", "text": "It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c63aad6e45412db0ff76bec5941037b", "text": "You need to contact the trading company and ask them what's going on. If it's simply a matter of needing to add more cash because you are now classified as a day trader, then call them, ask them what you need to do to not be considered a day trader, and do that. It would likely consist of not trading for a week and then trading less than you were going forward to avoid getting classified as a day trader again. That would be the easy problem to solve, so I hope that's right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3631af51555feb4c27a4241fe7870abe", "text": "\"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "69ae83f670a7244134f490f66f43f59a", "text": "No. The WSJ prime rate is 4.25%, even the Fed prime rate is 1.75%, way above the 1.20% you'll be making from your savings account. If you are high worth individual with great credit history, the bank might give you a personal loan at 4.25%. They won't care what you do with it as long as they get their payments. If you are not that creditworthy, they'll ask for a collateral, you can mortgage your house for example. It ends up being the sames thing, you get your money and do what you want with it. If you can make more than the interest rate the bank gave you, great, you made profit. The bank however won't agree to lend you money at 0.6% (1/2 of the 1.2% APY your savings account will bring). Why would they when they can loan that at prime rate of 4.25%?? The closest you can get to something like this is if you are a hot-shot wall street money manager with track record of making big profits. In that case the bank might put some money in your fund for you to manage, but that's not something a regular person can do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e25fcd5b89b415a0f9310d96fdd581a2", "text": "\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9995f39a64da432da936cff80e0fefde", "text": "\"There are many flaws with your idea. Say I want to borrow $225,000.00 to accrue interest on a 1.20% APY account. I promise ... that I cannot withdraw nor touch the account by legal contract. If you break the contract and lose the money, the lender is out the money. They can take you to court and will win, but if you don't have the money, then they don't get paid. (You can't squeeze water out of a rock even if a judge orders you to.) By sharing the interest with me on a loan, they keep a percentage that they'd normally get... If you're \"\"investing\"\" the money at 1.2%, and the lender gets some amount less than that, then they are getting much less than they \"\"normally\"\" get. Lenders typically get somewhere from 5-15% on loans. The money can also be used to fund a stock/trading account. Regardless of whether I profit, I pay interest on the loan and split the profit shares 24/7. How can the lender lose with legal enforcing? Again, if you lose the money, no amount of legal enforcing can force you to pay money that you don't have. Even if you go to jail for fraud the lender still doesn't get paid. Simply, no bank would ever agree to this.\"", "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": "e6a05a201fa315f59ff8f24e7e0a57ce", "text": "One of many things to consider is that in the United States student loan interest is tax deductible. That fact could change the math enough to make it worth putting A's money elsewhere depending on his interest rate and income bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5248e0a577f68808f7f7d876323e419", "text": "When you get a loan (car, home, student) the lending company (bank) give the (auto dealer, previous home owner, school) money. You as the borrow promise to pay this money back with interest. So in your case the 100,000 you borrow requires a payment for principal and interest of ~965 per month. After 240 payments you will have paid the bank ~231,605. So who got the ~131,000 in interest. The bank did. It was used to pay interest to the people who made deposits into the bank. It was also used to pay the expenses of the bank: salaries, retirement, rent, electricity, computers, etc. If the bank is a company with investors they may have to pay dividends to them to. Of course not all loans are successfully paid back, so some of the payment goes to cover the loans that are in default. In many cases loans are also refinanced, or the house is sold long before the 20-30 year term is up. In these cases the amount of interest received for that loan is much less than anticipated, but the good news is that it can be loaned out again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a30438a8e0fe678ad8874732fadef31", "text": "In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern. Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing. Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default. In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back. Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you. Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d204a01aa381794682d8311a8a933d", "text": "\"Borrowing to invest is almost always a bad idea. You'd have to take out an unsecured loan, which has a higher interest rate, or a secured loan and put at risk whatever you are securing the loan with. You need some means to make payments on the loan, or if interest is being added to the balance then take the compounding effect into account with regards to the cost of the money and how much you will really end up owning. In order to come out ahead you need to 'invest' in something that will yield a return that is higher than the cost of borrowing the money, such high yields always come with higher risk, meaning that you will actually GET that return is less and less of a sure thing.. so now you are talking about the 'chance' to make money, Or a chance your 'investment' could fail, perhaps badly. Meaning you could well do nothing but end up in debt with little to nothing to show for it. If someone claims to have a 'sure thing' and is encouraging you to borrow money to invest in it, I'd be checking their back for a fin and remembering the lyrics \"\"when the shark bites ... scarlet billows start to spread\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efb67fdb36add186c2b1c0a521abe042", "text": "If they have borrowed money without paying it back, what makes you think you could get interest paid? The problem that you face first is to make clear to them that a loan is a loan. As long as they can get free money off you, they will keep borrowing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d98fbc6f95845296f3b6efb947d9d778", "text": "If it is a business loan, the borrower would be able to claim a deduction for any interest paid on the loan and the lender would include the interest earned as part of their taxable income. You need to be careful on what you do and don't include as income. If the repayments made to you by the borrower in a year is $10,000 but only $8,000 of that is interest and the other $2,000 is part of the principal being returned to the lender, then you would only claim $8,000 as your income and the borrower would only claim $8,000 as a business deduction. Of course if it is interest only, then you and the borrower would use the full $10,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60b52ce239d29324e0aacd35c82de6e3", "text": "It depends on the type of loan. Fully amortized loans have a schedule of payments don't recalculate as you pay. If you want to make an additional payment you need to contact the lender to apply your payment toward principle and reamortize the loan. Otherwise all your additional payment will do is change the amount due on your next payment, or push out your next payment due date. Regarding interest calculation, you owe interest on the principle outstanding. Say you have a 10 year loan (120 Months), at 5% APR, and a $1,000 payment (this means you borrowed roughly $94,000) Each month the amount of interest owed reduces because there is less principle outstanding. The reason loans are amortized like this is so the borrower has a predictable, known, monthly amount due.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "790bd1aa9a78f54d3bd90c4c236277fd", "text": "\"There are two things I can think of that might be different in other countries: Until 2013, American Express, Visa and MasterCard prevented businesses from charging extra for credit card usage, and credit card surcharges still illegal in several states. Since credit card companies add a surcharge to credit card purchases, and merchants can't pass that onto credit card users, they just make everyone pay extra instead. Since everyone gets charged the credit card surcharge, you might as well use a credit card and recoup some of that via \"\"rewards\"\" points. Almost all credit cards here have grace periods, where you won't be charged interest if you pay back your loans in full within some period of time (at least 21 days). This makes credit cards attractive to people who don't need a loan, but like the convenience that credit cards provide (not carrying cash, extra insurance, better fraud protection). Apparently grace periods aren't required by law here, so this might be common in other countries as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f9066e5d2ad503b9ba9017aad63d7b", "text": "\"Money relationships are the opposite of friend relationships. That's why there's so much danger in loaning money to a friend - if the transaction doesn't work out well for one of you, it can destroy the friendship. Many of the answers here suggest you be prepared for the possibility that your friend will not pay you back. This is called a \"\"gift\"\". Give your friend the money, and trust that they will feel grateful. That gratitude will create generosity, and they will in turn seek to give gifts to you and to others in your circle. If you're not ready to give money to your friend, then you're better off not doing it. If you are ready to give money to your friend, then do it without expectation of return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eafcee4e844d3264b7139caa74e2ecd8", "text": "\"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no. If you can figure out how to turn a \"\"0% for first N months\"\" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b000a97892cc975d572e05f9af9505f", "text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b3cd9cdfce940bc2eec7386cf28b95", "text": "He would spend it into the economy that is accepting his dollars. As an example, the apple maker might borrow $100 with $10 interest for the deer shank, then later on get the $100 back from the deer hunter in trade for 150 apples, and then pay this $100 to the banker. Now the apple maker still needs $10 to pay off his loan. The banker says he'll trade his $10 in interest profit for 15 apples, now the apple maker can resolve his debt without further borrowing. The difference between spending interest earnings and issuing a loan is that when the banker is spending, they are getting something for their own use, when they are issuing the loan, they aren't getting anything but the promise to repay that loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e480d3236692273886be154a8499ced", "text": "\"I read up on it and saw that the IRS can \"\"charge\"\" the loan provider on interest even if the loan provider doesn't charge interest, but this is normally mitigated by the 0% interest being considered a gift and as long as it's below X amount your fine. Yes, this sums it up. X is the amount of the gift exemption, the $14K. However, you must differ between loan with no interest and loan with no paying back. With loan with no interest you're still giving a statutory gift of the IRS mandated minimum interest. However, the principal is expected to be repaid to you and you must show that this expectation is reasonably fulfilled. If you cannot (i.e.: you gave a \"\"loan\"\" with no intention of it being paid back), then the IRS will recharacterize the whole amount as the gift, and you'll be on the hook for gift tax for the amounts above the exemption. What defines a loan vs a gift in terms of the IRS, is it simply that the loan will be paid back, or is it only considered a loan if a promisary note is made? As I said - you must be able to show that the loan is indeed a loan, even if it is with no interest. I.e.: it is being repaid, it is treated as a loan by all parties, and is not an attempt to evade gift tax. Promissory note is not a must, but will definitely be helpful in showing that. But without the de-facto repayment of the loan, it will be hard to argue that it is not a gift, even if you have a promissory note. That means, you should make a loan in such a way that the borrower will (begin) repaying it reasonably soon, so that you can show payment schedule being followed and money moving back to you. Reasonably soon is not of course defined in a statute, so do consult with a EA/CPA licensed in your state on how to structure the loan so that it will not appear as an attempt to evade the gift tax. Are there any limits on how big a loan can be? No, but keep in mind that even with statutory interest charges (published by the IRS monthly, see the link), with large enough loan you can exceed the gift tax exemption. Also, keep in mind that interest is taxable income to you. Even if you gift it back (i.e.: the statutory interest).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4414e027b470e0bbfd52df49d5900c61", "text": "I would advise against this, answering only the first part of question #1. Borrowing and lending money among friends and family members can often ruin relationships. While it can sometimes be done successfully, this is most likely not the case. All parties involved have to approach this uniquely in order for it to work. This would include your son's future significant other. Obviously you have done very well financially, congratulations. Your view for your son might be for him to pay you off ASAP: Even after becoming a doctor, continue to live like a student until the loan is paid off. His view might be more conventional; get the car and house and pay off my loans before I am 50. He may start with your view, but two years in he marries a woman that pressures him to be more conventional. My advice would be to give if you can afford to, but if not, do not lend. If you decide to lend then come up with a very clear agreement on the repayment schedule and consequences of non-payment. You may want to see a lawyer. For the rest of it, interest payments received are taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d34007d3ff18343f2d2a187102c0548", "text": "\"A few thoughts: You said, To me it makes sense that if he accidentally put his own money in when he wasn't supposed to, he could just take it out and pay the tax on it and be fine. In this case, he would be putting his own after-tax money in, and wouldn't be able to deduct it, so the act of putting it in and taking it back out in the same tax year would be as if the transaction never occurred at all. He would not have to \"\"pay the tax on it\"\". As for this question: Is there any penalty to his employer if they contribute to an HSA on his behalf, knowing that he is not eligible, and that the money will be an excess contribution? It's good that your son is prepared to treat it as regular income and pay the appropriate taxes. However, the employer should be the one doing that. They should be treating it as regular income and taking out FICA and paying their end of FICA too. If they aren't doing that, technically they are breaking the law. The employer really shouldn't be making the contributions at all, and if they ever bothered to correct this, this article suggests that the employer may be legally allowed to drain the HSA account and take their money back out of it, but only for the same tax year. Apparently they can do this without your son's consent. If that's true, it may make sense to withdraw all money from that account immediately as soon as the money arrives, since they cannot take the money back if it is no longer there. Once the money leaves the HSA account the employer has no choice but to change it to income and if they don't, your son must declare it as such (which it sounds like he is prepared to do). This doesn't really answer your question of whether or not the employer can be penalized- I would assume yes, but not too badly. The worst case scenario for them would probably be just having to pay all the back FICA on those funds if they aren't doing so already. Maybe an interest penalty as well. All that being said, I'd recommend talking to an accountant. The most important thing you want to be sure of is that your son cannot possibly be liable for any wrongdoing. Particularly I would get confirmation on pulling money out of the HSA that you know shouldn't be there in the first place, just to make sure there is no possible way to get dinged for that.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c8672979540e87260ba5fd97c86aadc9", "text": "It looks like RK is encouraging tax fraud. Suggesting that one have their business cover personal expenses sounds like the advice that got Leona Helmsley in hot water.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2a80bbadd20bcfeb527a72ff20e820a", "text": "\"These types of diagrams appear all throughout Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad book. The arrows in the diagrams represent cash flow. For example, the first two diagrams of this type in the book are: The idea being presented here is that an asset generates income, and a liability generates expenses. According to the book, rich people spend their money buying assets, while middle class people buy liabilities. The diagram you posted above does not appear in the edition of the book I have (Warner Books Edition, printed in 2000). However, the following similar diagram appears in the chapter titled \"\"The History of Taxes and the Power of Corporations\"\": The idea behind this diagram is to demonstrate what the author considers the tax advantages of a personal corporation: using a corporation to pay for certain expenses with pre-tax dollars. Here is a quote from this chapter: Employees earn and get taxed and they try to live on what is left. A corporation earns, spends everything it can, and is taxed on anything that is left. It's one of the biggest legal tax loopholes that the rich use. They're easy to set up and are not expensive if you own investments that are producing good cash flow. For example; by owning your own corporation - vacations are board meetings in Hawaii. Car payments, insurance, repairs are company expenses. Health club membership is a company expense. Most restaurant meals are partial expenses. And on and on - but do it legally with pre-tax dollars. This piece of advice, like so much of the book, may contain a small amount of truth, but is oversimplified and potentially dangerous if taken a face value. There are many examples, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, of people who tried to deduct too many expenses and failed to make a business case for them that would satisfy the IRS.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "088df15e0ea3ad2ead12b98c4f94df99", "text": "This article leaves quite a bit of information out, I gather. Poorly written. How many corporations is he getting paid from? What were the terms of the agreement? It sounds like Kiyosaki himself isn't going bankrupt, it sounds like some small, off-shoot is taking the brunt of the damages so the rest of his assets can move on. This guy knows how to protect himself and his companies. This could be nothing more than a parking ticket for him, and this news website decided to sensationalize it. What a surprise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "037ff4f1b2515f5e2836409f3f382fe3", "text": "\"That has not been disproved. What the quote means is \"\"when [workers as a collective] earn more, [businesses as a collective] get more customers\"\". It's impossible to disprove this, because it's like a kind of economic tautology. It's like, if I give you five one dollar bills, how many five dollars will you have. What you mean to argue is that that's spacious, because the real world is more complicated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6544dfbaa3555ca482c8c4d30ba723ce", "text": "\"Actually, this quote is bogus. It is from a book (Web of Debt by Ellen Brown). Even Brown herself now acknowledges this fact: Chapter 7, #20 at http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/questions-and-answers/response-to-gary-north/response-to-gary-north-2/ From Brown: \"\"A bogus quote from Garfield on the control over money. I was already alerted to that. Garfield is no longer mentioned in my book.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b58d203013c024c3657a62f4153e2b6", "text": "In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e5cbb198a4572e0a15ab50c115e729", "text": "Just clarifying in case some people just skim and walk away thinking the author is bankrupt. Kiyosaki is involved in many business ventures. One of his companies filed for bankruptcy, which is a separate entity to himself. He himself did not lose any personal assets and is still very rich. Thanks for reading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e339735f623110bdf034ab57031d132", "text": "This is supply side nonsense. The primary driver of growth is demand. If demand is growing, then lower taxes will allow the company to meet growing demand faster. However, if demand is stable and currently being met by the company, reducing taxes will only enrich shareholders at the expense of society at large. Unless there is growing demand, a corporation will always choose to allocate profit via tax cuts to shareholders rather than to employees in the form of jobs or raises.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "313c3d47572e224eea5f71a63b51c006", "text": "\"I appreciate the time and thought you put into your comment. I, however, disagree with much of what you said. I don't think you understand the \"\"anti-business\"\" mentality at all. In fact calling it antibusiness to me sounds just horribly slanted. The wrongs that are commited by the business community should not be dismissed because they are \"\"hard to track\"\". Even if the statement is true, it doesn't matter. There is no excuse and frankly statements like that sound extremely apologetic. With that said, I agree with you 100% that a lot of the discourse on this subreddit is not conducive to discussion/learning. I certainly don't want to discourage you from posting. The frustration the \"\"business community\"\" feels by being misunderstood is certainly shared by the other side. If you would like to hear my thoughts on anything specific feel free to ask.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94d6cab7397de0ae8041fbfe4bf52214", "text": "This actually makes sense, although it's about twice as complicated as any concept I've seen laid out in a business, rather than economics context, so it's no surprise that people (as you say) get it wrong. Also, it emphasizes that corporate taxation is not exactly an easy thing to deal with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f5cd0e2810aa265ab71d2be22529cb9", "text": "Read your link. Thanks. The basic idea is that capitalism will work it out. And that each of us will pay a security agency to handle our disputes, and that rival security agencies will collaborate and negotiate with each other. And that private courts will be fair to protect their brand. This overlooks some harsh realities that already exist with capitalism. Customers generally do not have time to purchase based on accurate information for every product. For example, airlines compete almost solely on price. Insurance companies compete on price and provide horrible, sometimes fraudulent service. But customers are left in the dark (who is to say the insurer committed fraud if it disputes it?) Banks operate with gross incompetence and deceipt and are left untouched by the justice system. We have already discovered that just letting corporations operate without an restrictions creates serious problems. There has to be force that tempers their worst tendencies, even if that force (government) is imperfect. I remain confused why people think that corporations are somehow more trustworthy and efficient than government agencies. Or that corporations can be used to address externalities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02fa66cfa69d5558e602110f32d2b89a", "text": "Activist Investor is the entrenched capitalists fake news meme. Trump wants to pass a law that says shareholders don't even get a vote until they pass a certain threshold on ownership % of a company so they can keep all the little people from having any say. Ownership isn't really ownership unless you're rich I guess. Democracy bad! Freedom! America!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e56e61a49df070c62eeaa3456510c9e", "text": "\"It's a front; a farce. It's nearly suicide for a corporation (which relies on voluntary customers) to say they're \"\"against\"\" climate change - interpret that statement how you will. So they say \"\"*oh yeah, environment, great stuff, we love it, pollution bad, green good - we'll reduce our CO2*\"\". So they find some stupid project, reduce their emissions by whatever-% - ya know, throw a couple spare bucks at it, greenwash the shit out of it. And probably get half those dollars back as a green tax credit anyway. Meanwhile, their bottom line and day-to-day operations are largely unaffected. And the costly stuff - MACT compliance, legislation, taxes - the things that make environmental responsibility *really* happen - they want no part of that. So they pay of their politicians to promote that as \"\"*job killing*\"\" and quietly let them haggle over details. Or better yet - stall indefinitely. So everybody wins. Kind of.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9da812b213cc5c3e9363a2765e600f72", "text": "This creates high levels of efficiency, but is efficiency really what we need? A robot is very efficient, and increases income, but for who? When a corporation absorbs another, it does so *with the expectation* that redundant jobs will be shed, and that the income from those jobs will go to the shareholders. And so one can see where income inequality has it's roots.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc75b92e879150b5457e0281a3e31053", "text": "&gt; People should come before profits. The entire Corporate Charter process is in United States law. It does say profit comes before people, it's called fiduciary responsibility. I haven't seen any political parties rise around this topic -- so I'd assume corporations hurting people isn't as big as Reddit makes it out? Otherwise most Americans would change how they vote and find a new party?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a105efb12a70353eeb386335cb84764", "text": "\"&gt;\"\"Our support for these (shareholder resolutions on climate risk) proposals is not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of economics,\"\" he said. \"\"To the extent there are significant risks to a company's long-term value proposition, we want to make sure there is long-term disclosure of those risks to the market.\"\" the irony is indescribable\"", "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": "82f557e3bc6679dec9faab7b6e58cc05", "text": "Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046d9cdbbb9b9aa2eb877b718d47e705", "text": "Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44d1af6d4395f2c235888d5616012479", "text": "TIAA-Cref has their Social Choice Equity Fund, which is a Large Blend primarily equity fund that invests given the following consideration: The Fund primarily invests in companies that are screened by MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”) to favor companies that meet or exceed certain environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) criteria. The Fund does this by investing in U.S. companies included in one or more MSCI ESG Indices that meet or exceed the screening criteria described below. Prior to being eligible for inclusion in the MSCI ESG Indices, companies are subject to an ESG performance evaluation conducted by MSCI, consisting of numerous factors. The ESG evaluation process favors companies that are: (i) strong stewards of the environment; (ii) devoted to serving local communities where they operate and to human rights and philanthropy; (iii) committed to higher labor standards for their own employees and those in the supply chain; (iv) dedicated to producing high-quality and safe products; and (v) managed in an exemplary and ethical manner. https://www.tiaa.org/public/offer/products/mutual-funds/responsible-investing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a88f190b9a34215e9598fa911b24648", "text": "There is the iShares Jantzi Social Index Fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5cc462f14c7eb5e444e024987746662", "text": "\"Look at the Calvert Funds. They have a variety of \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds with published selection standards. Beware of mixing personal politics with business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436", "text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65d63f2d360544b545ad1ec39c769653", "text": "At the other end of the spectrum is the VICEX fund. it invests in industries such as tobacco, gaming, defense/weapons, liquor and other companies whose products or services are widely considered not to be socially responsible", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6d27696136ba1887f2e334a643403052", "text": "You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604", "text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59b058bcdbb701d92ee0a1c7554b96c5", "text": "The short answer to your question is yes. Index funds are about the easiest and most efficient diversified way to invest your money. Vanguard's are among the cheapest and best. Be aware, though, that passive income doesn't mean you do nothing for your money. In the case of investing, what you are doing is bearing risk. That is, you are being paid (on average) to put your money in a situation where you may lose money. If you keep your eye on the long-term prize, then when (not if) you sustain losses in your investment account, you will have the patience to leave the money in there. I'm a little confused by your wording about increasing your salary. Normally we think of index funds as a way to increase our wealth. If you are making new investments, presumably you have more salary than you need right now. Normal index funds will reinvest dividends automatically, so you will see the value of your investments rise but will not see any cash flows per se unless you are selling your holdings. If you want actual cash coming out of your investment, you can use ETF's to achieve the same type of investment and treat the dividends as a supplement to your income. Note, however, that some gains in your ETF will be in the form of capital gains and some will be dividends. Think more like 2% year per in dividend payments and the rest in capital gains. If your objective is to save for retirement, please consider investing through an IRA, Roth IRA, or through your 401(k). No need to give uncle sam a gift from your hard-earned money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0918254a089cca9fd94fee63324ec519", "text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625a988bfb55940701a041358b283f3b", "text": "Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "788e2922438931125a014bc6c0e69ede", "text": "Banks and energy are fundamental requirements for modern civilisation, and there are plenty of both who contribute a great deal to society's well-being, but I do know where you are coming from. The nature of the system we have is that the largest organisations tend to attract the most ruthless leaders who are prepared to screw over people and the environment in pursuit of their own selfish interest. Sociopaths cunning enough to not get caught out are rewarded and those who prioritise social benefits over the growth of their organisation are out-competed and make themselves less relevant. In theory, that should be kept in check by culture of social responsibility, a strong free press and good government, but those things have been eroding for a long time. There are mutual funds who seek to invest only in ethical companies. Ethics are subjective, so there's always the possibility that you'd disagree with their choices, or they make errors of judgement, but it's a better option than a fund that only considers returns. You've got a better chance that it is run by people who think ethics are important, so they might not see their clients as muppets to be fleeced (like Goldman Sachs apparently does). Alternatively, you could invest in a fund that contributes to growing a developing nation's economy, or only invests in renewable energy, or agriculture, or whatever you consider important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d", "text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ccaa6350c9ba08aed19a0257ccad94", "text": "In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085", "text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6cfd328152923cd18a400e5ea5ef1a5", "text": "Although you can't invest in an index, you can invest in a fund that basically invests in what the index is made up of. Example: In dealing with an auto index, you could find a fund that buys car companies's stock. The Google Finance list of funds dealing with INDEXDJX:REIT Although not pertaining to your quetion exactly, you may want to consider buying into Vanguard REIT ETF I hope this answers your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbaf8f14b52cfeedf9a2bdeac8dc656c", "text": "They have ETFs for most of what you listed above. Except the deep-fried candy bars. You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right? They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones. There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees. For that they need VOLUME. Move Volume = More Money Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014. That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3003d5746feb0494dc747bbe65128495", "text": "New to Reddit (please forgive any struggles with propriety) and created this post because I could not find any relatively recent discussions on corporate social responsibility or created shared value. I'm passionate about advocating for an intuitively triple bottom line economic system where compassion is logically and holistically advantageous. Curious to know if anyone can provide sound arguments for why that vision will never come true or won't come true anytime soon. Basically, I want to have a real micro/macro critical discussion on CSR and CSV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b5b90e9340e1eadbd41a2f035e6a76b", "text": "\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3907f73e157690cfd45309ed0bda2e5", "text": "Does your current employer offer a 401(k)? Can you roll your IRA into that? You can borrow from a 401(k). If you leave your job, get fired etc., you have to pay back the loan but you can avoid the early withdrawal penalty at least; there may also be less of a tax issue since it is a loan and may not be considered income unless you don't pay it back. The terms for taking a loan are set by the 401(k) plan documents. If you explore this route make sure you see the plan document itself. Don't rely on what someone tells you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "007e22a9f926be047351fa6ff6a02a9c", "text": "Although this scheme is likely to get shut down rather quickly by either your broker or credit card company some points you seem to have missed out on. Properly timed you should be able to get ~55 days of grace period (30 day billing cycle + 25 day grace period) assuming you pay everything off every month and charge immediately following the statement date. You will need to avoid certain card issuers that code all transactions with financial institutions as cash advances (Citibank in paticular). If it is possible it would be in your best interest to lower cash advance limits to 0 to avoid any chance of cash advance fees. If your credit card attempts to process it as a cash advance the transaction will just be declined and you won't be out anything. Otherwise one cash advance fee will eat several months worth of profits. As far as investments with guaranteed principal goes the only thing you can realistically do is money market accounts and maybe treasury notes. Anything else and the short term price fluctuation may leave you high and dry. If this scheme were to work you would be much better off attempting to get rewards for the purchases than anything you could invest in. If you used a 2% card and churned it every month you would be looking at a 24% return on credit card rewards. Even 1% rewards gives you a 12% annual return which is going to beat anything you could invest the money in.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "179994ff8c7fafc4523b9341609b5004", "text": "You can view Standard & Poor's credit ratings here: http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/en/us/ You have to register with S&P to access the ratings.", "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": "681f7184bde61e9ceafddbd27414387a", "text": "You really can't. Credit rating is determined by financial history, and until your kids are old enough to legally sign a contract they have essentially no financial history. Interesting out-of-the-box thought, but not workable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d7927f3cc6a8c9dd272960747f38d05", "text": "The cold caller is just a different way to contact you compared to the junk mail that they send. The business gets information from the credit rating companies for households that meet a specific set of criteria. It could be town, age, home ownership, low credit utilization...Or the exact opposite depending on what they are selling. Some business do sell your data. Grocery store know who buys certain products: parents buying diapers may want to start saving for college; ones buying acne medicine may want to talk about lower rates for car insurance. When they call via phone they have a different success rate compared to junk mail, but for that business that may be acceptable for their needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c783ef9f0ca268bb0df24e9258cb74e7", "text": "\"The list of the public companies is available on the regulatory agencies' sites usually (for example, in the US, you can look at SEC filings). Otherwise, you can check the stock exchange listings, which show all the public companies traded on that exchange. The shareholders, on the other hand, are normally not listed and not published. You'll have to ask the company, and it probably won't tell you (and won't even know them all as many shares are held in the \"\"street name\"\" of the broker).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aeb0bb4b3bbbee25c09f14be0a80f01", "text": "Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow. Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care. They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth. Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21bf027dd7d50ab43d1fea90f8798f18", "text": "\"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, respectively. Ratings agencies are NOT paid by the investment banks, they are paid by the corporations or city/ state that is issuing debt. The investment banks are the syndicate that pulls the transaction together and brings it to market. For mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt CDO-CLO's, all of which are fancy structured securitizations, well, that is a different matter! Those transactions are the ones where there is an inappropriately close tie between the investment bankers and ratings agencies. And those were the ratings that blew out and caused problems. Ratings agencies continued to do a decent job with what WAS their traditional business, corporate and municipal bond ratings, as far as I know. What khajja said was 100% correct: S&amp;P's fees were paid by investors, the people who were purchasing the bonds, until about 50 years ago. Around the same time that McGraw-Hill purchased S&amp;P, in 1966, they departed from that model, and started charging the bond issuers for ratings. I don't know if that decision was driven by McGraw-Hill or not, though. One more thing: Not all credit ratings agencies are paid by the issuers. One of the 10 NRSRO's (a designation given by the S.E.C.) is Egan-Jones. Their revenue comes from the investors, bond purchasers, not the companies issuing bonds, unlike the S&amp;P/ Fitch/ Moody's \"\"business model\"\". So there is an alternative, which I consider hopeful and reason not to totally despair. EDIT: What xcrunna19 mentions is also totally accurate. The part about Nouriel Roubini (who is a professor at N.Y.U. or Columbia or such and a sensible though slightly high strung sort) is consistent with my impression. As for whether it would require government action to implement the changes advocated by Roubini, yes, I guess it would, but I don't know if the government would do that. It would be better if the credit ratings agencies would find their own way to a different, less conflicted payment-incentive model. Keep in mind too that many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank have removed the existing regulatory requirements for credit ratings on bonds and other securities. This is the scary part though: There isn't anything to replace the credit ratings agencies, not at the moment, as far as I can tell! Eventually the government is supposed to come up with an alternative, but that hasn't happened yet. Which is better: Not requiring ratings at all, or the past situation of sometimes inflated ratings, which imparted a false sense of confidence? I don't know.\"", "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": "2136538e1c183dd41f933085eadd0b7f", "text": "\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"", "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": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5", "text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30aacc07f38e6b5fa8c9dab25168220f", "text": "\"is your credit history ruined, or merely dinged? Is the blow recoverable? Any bad credit rating event is recoverable given enough time / money to solve the problem. As far as \"\"Ruined\"\" vs\"\" \"\"Dinged\"\", well, that's a matter of opinion; some people think that one bad item is the end of the world, others not so much. You will have an unpaid debt listed on your report. This will drop your score. The amount it impacts the score will depend on other factors in your report. Can the carrier try to get the money back in court? I assume you'll wind up dealing with a debt collector. Yes they could go to court, but that's unlikely at least in the short term. Far more likely is that the debt ends up sold to a debt collection agency for pennies on the dollar. The debt collection agency will harass you until you pay and they might file in court if they think the debt is more than enough to cover the court costs. Will this affect any other relationships you have? Possibly. A bad rating may make it more difficult to get credit in the future. However that depends on numerous other factors such as your entire history. It could even prevent you from being hired from certain jobs - not many of them, but some. Is it criminal? Read this: http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html The US does NOT have a debtors prison. However if the company decides to file a court case and you fail to appear or fail to abide by the court ruling then, in some states, you could be committing a crime and may be thrown in jail. At which point you are on the hook not just for the original fee but potentially a plethora of other costs. Never mind the loss of reputation when your friends, family and coworkers find out that you are sitting in jail. At the end of the day, just pay the debt. If you agreed to the plan and the plan has an early cancellation fee then the moral and ethical thing to do is pay it. Trying to see how bad it would be to ignore it isn't the right way to live.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c7e2492482cabf5a89816370180c36c", "text": "The only recommendation I have is to try the stock screener from Google Finance : https://www.google.com/finance?ei=oJz9VenXD8OxmAHR263YBg#stockscreener", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eaf0ece65e124c8ee239f8b0f7821d9", "text": "I've seen credit cards that provide you your credit score for free, updated once a month and even charted over the last year. Unfortunately the bank I used to have this card with was bought and the purchasing bank discontinued the feature. Perhaps someone out there knows of some cards that still offer a feature like this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfc23c6e3d2e087ba14307e90558851f", "text": "Credit Sesame monitors your credit score for free. My understanding is that they make their money off of credit card referrals.", "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": "f9c64c3b2016141277efdf4e834774e1", "text": "Google Finance gives you this information.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b52b3111d42d2c95432b983ec29ce190", "text": "It is possible but unlikely. Securities firms would prefer never to settle externally; rather, they prefer to wait until the liabilities can be netted. They are forced to make and take payment in three business days. The reason why is because settlement is costly in the same way as any other business would prefer to build trade credit instead of taking or making payment rapidly. The only circumstance where a financial firm would wish to take full delivery is when a counterparty is no longer trusted to be solvent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123b23a493b497031a0d631a994c11dc", "text": "The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1623a2eb8a76a355435bac24727d8667", "text": "\"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bfae4ee3ce21e5318f8c77e2a1927e1", "text": "I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cab8a85705f3c03341cab69c7efa553e", "text": "If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05206e3fc916ec4bb82e8b3111591c6b", "text": "\"Depends on your account. If you have a margin account, then you can \"\"withdraw\"\" the margin, and it will get paid off/settled on T+3. However if it's a cash account then you will most likely need to wait. Call your broker and ask, each broker has different rules.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f53938fe4acef1c5ca2cc4e5bb639f7", "text": "\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8", "text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3", "text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3ab4e4fb8cddfc0117247a078637e87", "text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9136a647ab0179c71a5d473f896d3a87", "text": "\"JoeTaxpayer nailed it. Here's another way to look at it: Generally, we invest in something, then might leave it there for a few years, then take it out, but don't touch it in between. In that case, to get the final amount X(N), we need to take the initial amount, then multiply by growth in the first year, then multiply by growth in the second year, etc. So, for three years, we have: X(3) = X(0) * G(1) * G(2) * G(3) = X(0) * \"\"average annual growth\"\" ^ 3 So, here, we see that we want the average annual growth to the power three equal to the product of the annual growth rates, thus, geometric mean: geometric mean = (G(1) * G(2) * G(3)) ^ (1/3) On the other hand, consider a situation where I have three investments X,Y,Z over one year. Now I have, after one year: X(1)+Y(1)+Z(1) = X(0)*G(1,X) + Y(0)*G(1,Y) + Z(0)*G(1,Z) = ( X(0)+Y(0)+Z(0) ) * \"\"average annual growth\"\" Now, in this case, if we assume X(0) = Y(0) = Z(0) = 1, i.e. I put equal amounts in each, we see that the average annual growth rate we want in this case is the arithmetic mean: arithmetic mean = (G(1,X) + G(1,Y) + G(1,Z)) / 3 (if we had unequal amounts at the beginning, it would be a weighted average). TL;DR:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c20acc933c7229ef76d2b45775b2092", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.princeton.edu/rpds/events_archive/repository/Naidu040313/Flood_HN_Jan2013.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Outcome Y in county c and year t is regressed on the fraction of county land flooded in 1927, state-by-year fixed effects, and county fixed effects: Yct = &amp;beta;t F ractionF loodc + &amp;alpha;st + &amp;alpha;c + \u0004ct Note that is allowed to vary by year, so each estimated is interpreted as the average difference between flooded counties and non-flooded counties in that year relative to the omitted base year of 1925 or 1920. &gt; 53 In a modified version of equation, the fraction of county flooded is interacted with a dummy variable for whether the county is a &amp;quot;plantation county&amp;quot; and a dummy variable for whether the county is a &amp;quot;nonplantation county. &gt; Column reports the within-state difference for each county characteristic by the fraction of the county flooded in 1927: the coefficients are estimated by regressing the indicated county characteristic on the fraction of the county flooded in 1927 and a state fixed effect, weighting by county size. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6q2327/when_the_levee_breaks_black_migration_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~177559 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*: **county**^#1 **ood**^#2 **Black**^#3 **agricultural**^#4 **estimate**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "149c4682dfbc9647724e92e4509ee2da", "text": "Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f25fc1100906dad3d175ba50a5c3a5c", "text": "TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?", "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": "a3bc7cbd264efa6c43b887e57c5fbe64", "text": "\"Curious if anyone has any insight here, but isn't it too soon to tell if this will lead to inflation, and purely speculative that we could \"\"do the same\"\", given that we are in a very different set of circumstances?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0eb89b0e9bf01c21aaade926811a1db", "text": "I think the answer to this must differ from country to country. I have lived in several countries where the normal everyday way of making a payment is to instruct my bank to transfer the money to the recipient's account. Of course this means I must know his name, SC and account number – but this is an accepted part of the system; businesses routinely display that information on invoices and correspondence. It is simply not regarded as confidential. DumbCoder's comment suggests that if he has that information he can take money from my account without my permission – in other words, my bank will pay money out of my account on someone else's request, without my authority. Is this correct? In which country or countries can this happen? (I must go there quickly and begin stealing people's money.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dd776fcff508cdba217b9e0a172c38b4", "text": "\"Been a long while since I've read it but if I remember correctly with quotational loss Graham refers to an unjustified decline in stock price because of Mr. Market's fear and loathing where the business prospects of the company are actually still sound. This is opposed to \"\"actual\"\" loss of capital which he would consider to be a company going bankrupt or just more generally turning out to have way worse business prospects than expected with the justified decline in stock price that entails.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ba96c65118aba556e5fd66ad996b27", "text": "\"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94b5eecca6ba3b05164821c00dcc103", "text": "\"https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/30/2-types-of-risk-2-types-of-bubbles.aspx (mirror): The Wall Street Journal reviews: What Mr. Bernstein calls \"\"shallow risk\"\" is a temporary drop in an asset's market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as \"\"quotational loss.\"\" \"\"Deep risk,\"\" on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won't recover for decades -- if ever. So quotational loss = loss not explained by change of actual value of a firm.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "329675bf2c9692f2f78d55243aa4920e", "text": "\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac70de86f7432cca214663a85920e3dc", "text": "A Section 1256 contract is any: Non-equity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). 60% of the capital gain or loss from Section 1256 Contracts is deemed to be long-term capital gain or loss and 40% is deemed to be short-term capital gain or loss. What this means is a more favorable tax treatment of 60% of your gains. http://www.tradelogsoftware.com/tax-topics/futures/ It's a really wierd rule (arbitraty 60% designation, so broad, etc), but section 1256 contracts get preferential tax treatment and that's what Buffett's talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "844e727cb6711f204c235c018b8b8ca0", "text": "It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context. When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose. When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time. A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close. By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb493ea94dd0fef17315bb6e00b6823b", "text": "There is a misunderstanding somewhere that your question didn't illuminate. You should have lost $0.04 as you say. Assuming the prices are correct the missing $0.02 aren't covered by a reasonable interpretations of the Robinhood fees schedule. For US-listed stocks: $0 plus SEC fees: 0.00221% of principal ($22.10 per $1,000,000 of principal) plus Trading Activity Fee: $0.000119/share rounded to nearest penny plus short/long term capital gains taxes The total fee rate is 0.002329% or 0.00002329*the price of the trade. With you trades totaling around $11, the fee would be ~0.000256 or ~1/40 of a penny. The answer is probably that they charge $0.01 for any fraction of a penny. It's difficult to explain as anything other than avarice, so I won't try.", "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": "84be8a7c538fae48665f33c5a50e9a99", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02ef0274a4d40457956ad35df0119955", "text": "E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186", "text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.", "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": "aedf2391fb10d1b8a89979464f555c0b", "text": "\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6467e804b2819ebdf69bc967a7c1f66", "text": "At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96f824981dbe9557d71896527caa0655", "text": "The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46", "text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9861a7e8fe1d31b48293d7fd52f0ef1", "text": "Well, I'd argue they aren't technically 'supposed' to lose cash; VCs and other investors are just ok with it if the growth justifies the loss. Of course then again, people apparently still own snapchat stock, so who knows.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7b8f26b9c664f83164a67fe7323ab686", "text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418d1c8eb7b3bcbfe3ed9d3b91e0f720", "text": "In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f83e907fd4c969acb36a4db865744b4d", "text": "I've read over these responses like a dozen times. It's really cool hearing from a business owner who has experienced things first-hand. Nobody in my family has ever been or known anything about business/stocks/Anything. I'm learning everything from the internet, friends, and now reddit. I'll certainly seek true legal advice but you have no idea how helpful you and every other person on this thread has been. Thank you! I'm all ears to anything else", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a25b57209b7b65d9120b4099816dbf27", "text": "Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the *residual* cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.", "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": "771ef6ae92da14c94bcd4eba78e1270b", "text": "\"Technical people on Reddit who have dealt with Oracle or similar web sites &amp; systems (myself included) seem to believe that Oregon's claims come down to whether it was Oracle or the state government who was worse at planning the creation and maintenance of Oregon's healthcare web site. I tend to think that government entities are often worse at managing &amp; planning things, and therefore believe that Oracle would be less likely to blame, but this doesn't necessarily mean that all of the more than dozen claims for damages will all be thrown out either. One key claim is that Oracle asserted that ~95% of the web site's functionality would work \"\"out of the box\"\", thus leaving only 5% of the web site's functionality requiring third party (potentially custom) integration. The burden is on Oregon to prove that the failures of the web site were the result of more than that 5%, and that Oracle was contractually obligated to fix issues with the \"\"&gt;5%\"\" at no additional charge. Failure to prove that would result in Oracle being justified in asking for more $ to fix the web site, such that the alleged racketeering and much of the fraud did not actually take place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "558f752b8e4d53038da7f1fad1c7b577", "text": "One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included) Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e89abafad08bda7125659f6655dfd39", "text": "Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebebc5c60545ce9fcf8ba4c35d204b25", "text": "Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8378244dc29df4226efa9ea00b22aaf4", "text": "Yes, you do. Unless you actually donate it, the loan will be repaid and as such - is an asset for you. On your taxes you report the interest you got paid for the loan. You can claim the interest as a charitable deduction, if you don't effectively charge any (IRS dictates minimum statutory interests for arm-length loan transactions).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9797c3ae43e312e7a4e29c26a0f28f57", "text": "If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89ed67b5f0774d7905ab336c87cbb9a", "text": "REITs can be classified as equity, mortgage, or hybrid. A security that sells like a stock on the major exchanges and invests in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. Trades like equity but the underlying is a property ot mortgage. So you are investing in real estate but without directly dealing with it. So you wouldn't classify it as real estate. CD looks more like a bond.If you look at the terms and conditions they have many conditions as a bond i.e. callable, that is a very precious option for both the buyer and seller. Self occupied house - Yes an asset because it comes with liabilities. When you need to sell it you have to move out. You have to perform repairs to keep it in good condition. Foreign stock mutual fund - Classify it as Foreign stocks, for your own good. Investments in a foreign country aren't the same as in your own country. The foreign economy can go bust, the company may go bust and you would have limited options of recovering your money sitting at home and so on and so forth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90064678db84cc09897194a1ff7108ba", "text": "\"Maybe not the official solution satisfying int'l convention / legislation, but at least has some logic to it (though I myself am not 100% convinced as yet): Liabilities ! ... but is it really a liability? Rationale: And simultaneously ups my liabilities: since what difference does it make if I borrow some money (to use it or not use it, repay later) or if someone just wants to \"\"store\"\" some money with me: w.r.t. balance sheet I'd say: zero... ... with the one caveat that it might make a difference w.r.t. taxation ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ea38d521dc9ddf679ca1260bc44b9d4", "text": "You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ab27f6adec8293954d5fffd3caaefc", "text": "Quite a bit as in, $100K+? If you're a sole operator, not sure what constitutes a real likelihood that a risk of liability will materialize, and in need of a lot of up front financing, I am genuinely concerned that you're going to a lay a giant egg on this one. What is it your business is going to be doing? I don't really want to give a free consultation, but I'm worried you're either misunderstanding something or about to make a mistake, and I don't want to see that happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e2d6eedafa33632362dc3b7976108c", "text": "The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d72a2287e6187ab29b5c58818cd1e8f", "text": "\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "929316683fa35e9a0e9f86e94cf91880", "text": "\"Most states have a \"\"cap\"\" on the amount a \"\"heir finder\"\" can charge for retrieving the property. It is generally around 10%. Even if the state does not have a particular statute you can usually negotiate the rate with the company. Thirty-percent is extortion, if they won't do it for less, someone else will.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39537f525254e9cde5d5705482fd42e4", "text": "It's true that most states have limits on what finders can charge if the listing is in state possession. If it is in the pre-escheat phase (that period of time before it goes to the state) then even if the money will eventually go to the state, the limits don't apply. Keane does a lot of work with transfer agents that handle the administrative work of stocks. Other options that have a time limit include I have a friend that was contacted by Keane. It turned out to be stock that her mother had when she worked for AMEX. She got busy with other things and got another letter from Keane. The stock increased in value and they wanted more money to help her even though they had already done the work of finding her. The money eventually went to the state and she was able to claim the full amount for FREE. If the suggestions I gave you don't get results, contact me through my web site and I'll try to help. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b87ccde0ee05b8f9e1675a19631d39a1", "text": "@ Chris: Companies like Keane, ours, and others know where to look for these funds and where to ask at the correct agencies that are holding this money that is not part of the public links that you have access to. This is how we find this information. Our types of companies spend significant time, money and resources in finding out about the money, then finding who it actually belongs to (because it does not always belong to who is mentioned on the list) and then finding the correct individual. @ jdsweet: I apologize if you think this is a marketing ploy. It is not. Our company doesn't even take phone calls from people that want us to find them money. Only if we contact someone, because at that time we're confident that the person we touch base with is due the funds. Again, I am not plugging our company, but trying to let Neil know that in some cases he is right, you don't need a third party to claim funds for you - if you can find them. In this case, he has looked and cannot find them. Keane is charging a fair amount to retrieve funds he cannot find and doesn't know about and is not charging him anything to do all the work. Again, as mentioned above, the direct answer is that we know how to access information and lists that have this money hidden from the public because the agency holding the funds doesn't want you to know about it so that they can escheat the funds. Escheating is the state's legal way to confiscate your money. See, if you don't put in a claim for the money (depending on what type it is and where it is located) the agency and state holding the funds has certain time frames for you to get the money. If you don't, again, they get to keep it and that is what they want despite what they say. That is why there is approximately $33 Billion that is known to the public and really $1 Trillion that's out there. I apologize if you think that this is a plug for my company, it's not because we're not looking for calls, we make them. I'm also not asking Neil for his business. From all accounts on my side, this seems like a fair deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34f60003b4847e6b7e946a91d4217856", "text": "So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f44d65ee06d29c9eac9b258e0d6b1ef", "text": "for full disclosure I'm an Independent Contractor and work with Jeff Richman. @ Neil: Question 1: How legitimate is this? If you were never contacted by the company you would never know about the money. Period, end of story. Not trying to be rude but that is the bottom line truth. Look up asset recovery businesses. They are in every city almost. They work for individuals, governments and businesses. Very legitimate business. Question 2: Since this doesn't seem to be the case, how does this company know that I potentially have unclaimed assets to claim? I understand your concern and the best analogy I can think of to explain this is: A company's copier breaks down. A copy machine repair man is called. He shows up and opens the copier and studies it intensely and closes it back up. He takes a hammer out of his bag and hits the copier on the side in two different places, twice. The copier starts working. He charges the company owner a $1000.00. The company owner is glad to pay it because without the knowledge of the repair man, his business is not making money. This is the same: The professionals at Keane have specific knowledge about how to, where to and who to ask for these lists. Granted, it's not your business we're talking about here but without them, you get nothing. 2 professionals have advised you to move forward; your brother's accountant and lawyer. Take the money. It costs you nothing. If they want money from you up front or want you to pay for stuff, run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c64d2cab3ef5806372194f09705c5e30", "text": "You can't blame companies like 'Legal Claimant Services' for making a profit by providing this service. That is capitalism and it is the way of the world. It is just like any other business you can do yourself - from making dinner to cutting your own grass. If you choose to do it yourself, you save money but you also do the work. When I got my letter telling me about a claim, I automatically went online to do some research. That's how I found this site and information that led me to validate the claim. I then chose to follow a few simple instructions and keep all of the claim instead of giving away 30%.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "288030820e1d78decd491525378e6253", "text": "\"There are at least three financial institutions involved here: your insurance company's bank, the money center, and your bank. Normally, they would keep records, but given that the money center didn't even ask for your signature, \"\"normal\"\" probably doesn't apply to them. Still, you can still ask them what records they have, in addition to the other two institutions; the company's bank and your bank likely have copies of the check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06c4c5629a4c4f0af1e5c054ff97484", "text": "Actually banks aren't required to (and don't) report on 8300 because they already report $10k+ cash transactions to FinCEN as a Currency Transaction Report (CTR), which is substantively similar; see the first item under Exceptions in the second column of page 3 of the actual form. Yes, 8300 is for businesses, that's why the form title is '... Received In A Trade Or Business'. You did not receive the money as part of a trade or business, and it's not taxable income to you, so you aren't required to report receiving it. Your tenses are unclear, but assuming you haven't deposited yet, when you do the bank will confirm your identity and file their CTR. It is extremely unlikely the government will investigate you for a single transaction close to $10k -- they're after whales and killer sharks, not minnows (metaphorically) -- but if they do, when they do, you simply explain where the money came from. The IRS abuses were with respect to people (mostly small businesses) that made numerous cash deposits slightly under $10k, which can be (but in the abuse cases actually was not) an attempt to avoid reporting, which is called 'structuring'. As long as you cooperate with the bank's required reporting and don't avoid it, you are fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc7a6be9b8252d019482eb7a6c261482", "text": "Look up escheatment. Companies that have unclaimed property are supposed to send it to your State government. They should have a unclaimed property department of some sort. In short, the company is going to have to pay either you, or your State (In Your Name) so they have to pay it either way. It would be easier for them to just give you new check. Expect them to give you some grief in verifying it has not been cashed and such... but if you have the original, in hand, it shouldn't be too bad. A 'Lost' check may be harder to get replaced. Not a lawyer, don't want to be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69b86f3654b9194f188b80eabf2295ae", "text": "For purposes of the EIN the address is largely inconsequential. The IRS cannot (read: won't) recover the EIN if you fail to write it down after the website generates it for you. On your actual tax form the address is more consequential, and this is more so a question of consistency than anything. But an entity can purchase property anywhere and have a different address subsequent years. Paying the actual taxes means more than the semantical inconsistencies. The whole purpose of separate accounts is to make an audit easier, so even if someone imagines that some action (such as address ambiguity) automatically triggers an audit, all your earnings/purchases are not intermingled with personal stuff, which just streamlines the audit process. Consequences (or lack thereof) aside, physical means where physical property is. So if you have an actual mailing address in your state, you should go with that. Obviously, this depends on what arrangement you have with your registered agent, if all addresses are in Wyoming then use the Wyoming address and let the Registered Agent forward all your mail to you. Don't forget your $50 annual report in Wyoming ;) How did you open a business paypal without an EIN? Business bank accounts? Hm... this is for liability purposes...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de5aca707980d49571f86a463301d315", "text": "The bank doesn't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to provide the proof of insurance. It is the agent's job, which you through your HOA dues paid for, to provide that proof to you. You shouldn't be registering with icerts. They say so in the first sentence on the registration page: Unit Owners, Do Not Register Here! If you own an existing property, and have received a letter from your lender requiring an annual renewal/updated certificate for an association that has recently expired, please forward that letter to [email protected] to receive instructions to place your order. If your request is a new loan of any kind, please contact your lender and request that they either contact us to place this order, or register below. So you can try that route (sending an email to [email protected]), and see if it works. It does cost money, in the range of $20-$100 (I used a different similar service at the time and they charged $75 for this). If it doesn't, you can try and work with the insurance agent. There are some ways to persuade them: California has very strong traditions of consumer protections. In this case, I suggest checking out this site. Let the insurance agent know that as the HOA member - they're working for you, and that in the next HOA meeting you will raise a request to change the insurance agency. Also, remind the agent that the CA Insurance Commission will knock on their doors to ask why they don't provide you with the proof you need. If the HOA management company doesn't help you, you can remind them that they too can be fired. This can be done, and isn't even all that hard. There's a lot of competition in the HOA management market, and it wouldn't be too hard to find a new management company. The HOA management company should have provided you the proof of coverage when they renewed the policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b9621b60430f617188f8e6a7a7ba8da", "text": "You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37cc8bdd08df6c1a1e8065e0b6807bbe", "text": "It all boils down to this: If you don't have a record of what you own before a fire happens, you can't get it after the fire happens. The more records you have, the better. Proof of sales price. Proof of authenticity. Condition. Quantity. If you have to prove value, you'll be glad you have the records. It makes sense also to see what kind of things are not covered. Is art covered? How about coins or jewelry? A stamp collection? Antiques? If replacing these kinds of things is important to you, then make sure you (a) have insurance for it, and (b) can demonstrate its value with your records (purchase receipt, appraisal, etc.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5585aaa5c498c78f143339441300c8fa", "text": "Why not just leave it as is and register as foreign entity in New Mexico? You won't avoid the gross receipts tax, but other than that - everything stays as is. Unless Illinois has some taxes that you would otherwise not pay - just leave it there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "179865a30346970704317a51f27e3820", "text": "Do you have any ties to your old address? In particular are you the LANDLORD? This could have been a precursor application to test identity evidence and setup a mortgage. The perps may even have legally changed their name to yours and even be living in, or close to the house if it is a share house to intercept this kind of mail. Otherwise someone's database may have been breached, so it is important you try to work out where this information used in the application came from. If they are an illegal you may be racking up Council Tax somewhere or end up paying income tax on their earnings. In any case your character has probably now been damaged. So do follow it up right smartly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d9aa347dd6586e63001086f0a889da", "text": "California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23d1fd7eb4061a4e562aef4f5efda6af", "text": "Such funds are handed over to the state. In NE, like in many states, there is a government website where you can search by your name, find them, and claim them (with proof of your identity, etc.): https://treasurer.nebraska.gov/up/ For sure, the bank cannot just take the money. It is sitting somewhere, the bank just closed the account, meaning they are technically not managing your money anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a376c9d3887abdf50b1995e3dbdf34e3", "text": "\"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \"\"Disregarded entity\"\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \"\"person\"\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \"\"all one big pile\"\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23e4a87d43219cca0d6b24be9ba1747d", "text": "If this happened, first you would be breaking the law for driving without insurance. Second, my uninsured motorists insurance would cover it. Third, your personal net worth is not zero. You are the owner of all those corporations which happen to own those assets. I could sue you and you would have to liquidate your stakes in those corporations. Your example is just saying someone doesn't have any assets if all their cash is tied up in stocks (equity ownership of corporations). If you're argument held true in court, no one could sue anyone successfully, because everyone would just put all their money in equities before a lawsuit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f5e0eafbf4a4f511c5b3cc702ad1061", "text": "\"Most likely the bank will keep it on file for a few years then turn it over to the state as \"\"unclaimed property\"\". I can't speak for all states though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e62680cb5119476d36137287a51679e", "text": "This seems very suspicious, as if it were fraud, and not a legitimate collector. Garnishing wages takes a court order. A court would require a bit more proof than a name. Names can easily be common, I know sets of first cousins named after the common grandparent, 4 pairs in my extended family, along with 2 triples. The court would certainly look for a social security number match. Your own credit history will show no activity in that state. A legitimate debt collector would handle this very differently.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d77d584e74daebcdd1a0347d8295c0ac", "text": "The market sets prices and the way JP Morgan or any other bank or organization determines the price it's willing to deal in would be proprietary business information.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3f128f16f4e6731cf3b3b249ec63a4f4", "text": "\"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available. This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99. This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered. If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the \"\"level two\"\" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00. I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db92ce858b3591cf4d0933e4c1a1d624", "text": "\"No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an \"\"initial margin\"\" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "befc5e32beb333b71ded5cf3f93981d1", "text": "\"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike). So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the \"\"prompt\"\" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future. The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de6c4401e481d9f660c967f3307c4199", "text": "My logic for prices was this: S&amp;P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&amp;P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67e4b5300c51efab8635a449c192e413", "text": "\"That characterisation of arbitrage-free pricing sounds a bit like the \"\"relative vs. fundamental\"\" approaches to asset pricing that Cochrane outlines (in his text, *Asset Pricing*). Rebonato also makes this distinction with regard to term structure models in *Volatility and Correlation*. On one extreme you have CAPM-style models in which asset prices are completely determined by investors' risk preferences; on the other extreme, you would have something like a SABR-Libor Market Model where you take everything up to and including the volatility surface as given. What's interesting to me is the way in which these different classes of models get used in various parts of the financial industry. So, buy side firms tend to rely a lot more on equilibrium-style models, since they ultimately care about things like how the equity risk premium or the bond risk premium affect asset prices. In contrast, derivatives quants working at a big sell-side bank who are pricing exotics don't care about what the \"\"fundamental\"\" value of their underlying assets is; they just take that as given and price the exotic accordingly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f03a5a32f7df5a49a93eb16e4e7bd82", "text": "Because the standard contract is for 125,000 euros. http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/g10/euro-fx_contractSpecs_futures.html You don't want to use Microsoft as an analogy. You want to use non financial commodities. Most are settled in cash, no delivery. But in the early 80's, the Hunt brothers caused a spectacular short squeeze by taking delivery sending the spot price to $50. And some businesses naturally do this, buying metal, grain, etc. no reason you can't actually get the current price of $US/Euro if you need that much.", "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": "7bbd043eabc228898ea2466c0b459b6e", "text": "There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0daa4cff8d959a279c6cc91d5bcc87", "text": "\"You can interpret prices in any way you wish, but the commonly quoted \"\"price\"\" is the last price traded. If your broker routes those orders, unlikely because they will be considered \"\"unfair\"\" and will probably be busted by the exchange, the only way to drive the price to the heights & lows in your example is to have an overwhelming amount of quantity relative to the order book. Your orders will hit the opposing limit orders until your quantity is exhausted, starting from the best price to the worst price. This is the functional equivalent to a market order.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f09a659705f500b5a9e46f2f59bb4d0", "text": "This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b76ed1c3867613a61e57eaefd41c793", "text": "You want to sell for 61.15, but the most the best buyer will pay is 61.10? The HFT trader forces you both to trade over a gap of a nickel AND makes a nickel in profit?? How does he do that, with magic?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019", "text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "885c2fe86964f417fb835bfe6bb68713", "text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9a42e8d6987481747c2211d779c067c", "text": "I'd imagine in this extreme edge case it would round down to $0. I can't fathom what makes $10.02 or $153.02 any different from $0.02.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "656fb040050e21c9676a9f63858ab091", "text": "\"I agree completely. \"\"I don't always agree with John Cochrane, but when I do, I agree completely.\"\" I think heavy reliance on either approach to pricing is generally a bad idea. Equilibrium models always include something that you're supposed to inherently know, but never do. No-arbitrage models don't necessarily *say* anything that you don't (in some mathematical sense) already know. So you're either stuck with unknown parameters, or you can't explain why you're something is worth what you say it is beyond, \"\"Herp derp, other people are doing it.\"\" So I think if buy-side people made some use of no-arbitrage models, they'd have a better understanding of the parameters they're making up, and if sell-side people sometimes used equilibrium models, they'd have a better grasp of what's going on economically. Also, it would have the beneficial effect of reminding people that their models are always wrong, even if they're frequently useful.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1954c05331040b02cb1ab7f1ada311a5", "text": "In general, currency has no expiration date. Specifically, in Canada, the Bank of Canada has been issuing banknotes since 1935, and these are still considered legal tender, even though they don't look much like the modern banknotes. Before that, Canadian chartered banks issued currency, and these also still have value. However, there are a few things to note. First of all, with currency of that age, it often has more value as a collector's item than the face value. So spending it at a store would be foolish. Second, store clerks are not experts in old currency, and will not accept a bill that they do not recognize. If you want the face value of your old currency, you may need to exchange it for modern currency at a bank. Having said all that, there are certainly cases where currency does expire. Generally this happens when a country changes currency. For example, when the Euro was introduced, the old currencies were discontinued. After a window of exchange, the old currency in many cases lost its value. So if you have some old French Franc notes, for example, they can no longer be exchanged for Euros. These types of events cannot be predicted in the future, of course, so it is impossible to say when, if ever, the Canadian currency you have today will lose its spending value in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7640319b1c12b9083eb1af33680b292", "text": "US currency doesn't expire, it is always legal tender. I can see some trouble if you tried to spend a $10,000 bill (you'd be foolish to do so, since they are worth considerably more). Maybe some stores raise eyebrows at old-style $100's (many stores don't take $100 bills at all), but you could swap them for new style at a bank if having trouble with a particular store. Old-series currency can be an issue when trying to exchange US bills in other countries, just because it doesn't expire here, doesn't mean you can't run into issues elsewhere. Other countries have different policies, for example, over the last year the UK phased in a new five pound note, and as of last month (5/5/2017) the old fiver is no longer considered legal tender (can still swap out old fivers at the bank for now at least). Edit: I mistook which currency you took where, and focused on US currency instead of Canadian, but it looks like it's the same story there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03791a37f88fb667d6c14705ea1d4c3f", "text": "\"Currency lives no more then 50 years. US currency did not expire in last 100 years, but it was reinstated few times, last one was 2009. Note that currency is not just what you hold in your hand. Currency is system of relations of money supply (currency is not money but we forced to use standard terminology), banking rules and government policy. Currency exists as long as government wants it to. In 2009 for example, US government decided it needs new currency and just printed whole new money supply. So US dollar is now counting as \"\"partially fresh new currency\"\". It was reinstated. Not expired. But today's dollar is totally different from 90s and 00s. Will it be accepted after 200 years? Yes (probably). But most likely at that time there will be totally new US dollars. And new Euros, new Pounds and so on. Currency is method of transfer. You can have that physical coins you have, but as economic agent it will die very quickly. It is not only related to inflation, in fact, inflation is the least of your worries. If you count all currencies in the world which ever existed, most of them 99.99% are completely dead by now (with governments which supported it). Not even single one currency which lived more then 100 years. US dollar was reinstated in 1860, 1907, 1930, 1973, 1987, 2009 and in fact it is not single currency but dozen which were allowed to be used \"\"for compatibility reasons\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "031daa43ef28ab8f0178cc542cea1d56", "text": "\"Since you want to know exactly what \"\"yield\"\" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about \"\"yield\"\" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise. Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, \"\"yield\"\" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards. TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation.\"", "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": "1b8b1ccf5da9d12db5f771d27f4f5d92", "text": "Echoing JohnF, and assuming you mean the physical, rather than abstract meaning of money? The abstract concept obviously isn't replaced (unless the currency is discredited, or like the creation of the Euro which saw local currencies abandoned). The actual bits of paper are regularly collected, shredded (into itty-bitty-bits) and destroyed. Coinage tends to last a lot longer, but it also collected and melted down eventually. Depends on the country, though. No doubt, many people who took a gap year to go travelling in points diverse came across countries where the money is a sort of brown-grey smudge you hold with care in thick wadges. The more modern economies replace paper money on a dedicated cycle (around three years according to Wikipedia, anyway).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba960eb7f7436e5f3824be9fad756a02", "text": "If you're willing to use OFX or QIF files, most Canadian banks can spit output more data than 90 days. The files are typically used to import into Quicken-like local programs, but can be easily parsed for your webapp, I imagine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f805fba133d2272947714245b4c446", "text": "As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486", "text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e67df494d70bb86bbc203462decd2a", "text": "Coins have the minimum value of the metal they are made from. Bank notes (paper money) would only be valuable when it becomes rare. And there isn't a good way to predict how quickly something like Zimbabwe dollars will become rare (that I know of at least).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6057489b63d4a6078034e2f58b3fe5f7", "text": "I'm not sure, but I think the monetary system of Second Life or World of Warcraft would correspond to what you are looking for. I don't think they are independent of the dollar though, since acquiring liquidity in those games can be done through exchange for real dollars. But there can be more closed systems, maybe Sim type games where this is not the case. I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5c814615f9c906e4ab3664358d56153", "text": "Currencies today are mostly just paper with perceived value. Gold and silver aren’t the same as modern monies because there is an actual finite amount in the world. Paper money is technically infinite and can be used to control the value of it to that end such as quantitative easing. The question is is Bitcoin like paper currency? In which case things that affect paper money would effect it with some exceptions. Or is it like gold and silver in that there is a finite amount? That’s for people who know more about it than me but I have heard terms like mining bitcoin and stuff... I was thinking about investing in bitcoins too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45f748a0c31dd76eb6f670978f51320", "text": "Fist money does not have legal tender. And technically there are thousands of people willing to fight for bitcoin, who can be seen as an army so in that logic bitcoin has some intrinsic value. But both don't have intrinsic value. Most sources on the internet I can find agree with that. Wikipedia, investopedia and many others. Not that money needs intrinsic value. If the market value is 1000 times above the intrinsic value then the intrinsic value is not even relevant. But 1000 * 0 = 0 and the intrinsic value of the dollar itself (not coins) will always be 0. Same for the EUR and then YUAN.", "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": "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": "b5cb9014490f54e93bdd3c759e17a493", "text": "Granted, currencies don't have intrinsic value. Cryptocurrency is worse than government currencies in a few ways: - it costs real resources to produce - no institution keeps values stable - values are volatile in practice In those respects, crypto is more similar to a precious metal than a currency. Except it's worse than precious metals too, as metals have some intrinsic value. Crypto won't be able to overcome these disadvantages to compete with government-issued currencies in the long term. It might compete with gold long term. There are a lot of nuts and gold bugs in the world, and crypto might live on in that fringe space.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc23dc0b3a9f674b1d90cdb84f98052a", "text": "This was such a wonderful and clear explanation. It has helped me to understand (at 28) a concept that I have always been a bit murky on. I would feel safe making the bet that you are a teacher of some sort. I would find it extremely interesting to hear you thoughts on why we don't use the gold standard anymore. Do you work in finance?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be13fa59cf116fba48f6e48a8d156b8", "text": "\"First off learn from this: Never cosign again. There are plenty of other \"\"tales of woe\"\" outlined on this site that started and ended similarly. Secondly do what you can to get off of the loan. First I'd go back to her dad and offer him $1000 to take you off the loan and sign over the car. Maybe go up to $3000 if you have that much cash. If that doesn't work go to the bank and offer them half of the loan balance to take you off. You can sign a personal loan for that amount (maybe). Whatever it takes to get off the loan. If she has a new BF offer him the same deal as the dad. Why do you have to do this? Because you owned an asset that was once valued at 13K and is valued at (probably) less than 4K. Given that you have a loan on it the leverage works against you causing you to lose more money. The goal now is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. I feel like the goal of your post was to make your ex-gf look bad. It's more important to do some self examination. If she was such a bad person why did you date her? Why did you enter a business transaction with her? I'd recommend seeking counseling on why you make such poor choices and to help you avoid them in the future. Along these lines I'd also examine your goals in life. If your desire is to be a wealthy person, then why would you borrow money to buy a car? Seek to imitate rich people to become rich. Picking the right friends and mates is an important part of this. If you do not have a desire to be a wealthy person what does it matter? Losing 13K over seven months is a small step in the \"\"right\"\" direction.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7ffc83534ed9f045e2e4f6a6b3b400b1", "text": "Short answer: NO, there is no financial benefits for you to expect in a local currency even if some might give tiny discounts on local sales. Local currencies are attractive for small business or communities, they are perfectly legal and starting to be popular in a lot of places. Local currencies encourage individuals and businesses to exchange goods and services locally. Using them is like investing in your community. It could give you the feeling of doing something good for your community. Check this article for a discussion on the subject. They should not be considered investments. Local currencies do not offer the same financial security and some could be like monopoly money, but that would be another subject or question to debate. So, to summarize: no money to be made for your personal use, but some real social and financial benefits for your community. Would'nt that be a kind of personal benefit for you ?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "15404acf93f7162857cc0bc696e09b11", "text": "\"There are firms that let you do this. I believe that Saxo Bank is one such firm (note that I'm not endorsing the company at all, and have no experience with it) Keep in mind that the reason that these currencies are \"\"exotic\"\" is because the markets for trading are small. Small markets are generally really bad for retail/non-professional investors. (Also note: I'm not trying to insult Brazil or Thailand, which are major economies. In this context, I'm specifically concerned with currency trading volume.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29891229a6cd740290149c10ec1cbff3", "text": "\"Perhaps it's the terminology \"\"fee\"\" that makes it a little confusing. I'm not sure whether it's due legislation or if it's tradition but banks and money changers in my country don't charge \"\"fees\"\". Instead they advertise separate prices for buying and selling money. For example they'd normally advertise: USD, we buy: 4.50, we sell: 4.65. It's a business. Just like selling cars or lemonade selling money only makes sense if you sell it at a higher price than what you bought it for. Regardless of what you call it it's the profit margin for the seller.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48", "text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.", "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": "61613f9d8b9dd2efa33ee36ade8f02a6", "text": "\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a784e06e0738e08af5368a14b5afae86", "text": "There's another dimension here as currency conversion isn't necessarily the final answer. As stated by others, converting money between the three should theoretically end up with the exact same value, less transactional costs. However the kink is that the price of most products are not updated as the currencies change. In many cases the price difference is such that even accounting for shipping and exchange fees, purchasing a product from a distributor in a foreign country can be cheaper than just picking it up at the local store. You might even be able to take advantage of this when purchasing at a single store. If that store is set up to accept multiple currencies then it's a matter of looking at the conversion rates the moment you are buying and deciding which one is the cheapest route for you. Of course, this generally will not work for smaller purchases like a cup of coffee or a meal. Primarily because the fee for the exchange might eclipse any savings.", "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": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281", "text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b350243d1a7fea34bb88edd7d11f0aa0", "text": "All institutions, financial or otherwise, seek to maximize profits. In a free market, each bank would price its services to be competitive with the current state of the market. Since the currency conversion fee is generally a small part of the decision as to which bank to choose, banks can be non-competitive in this area. If this is an important consideration for you then you would need to find a bank with a lower conversion fee, but be prepared to have higher fees in other areas. TL;DR: The market bears it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a854b7f1fb9a4c4cbd73fad4b1fced68", "text": "Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614f000308e628a7beaebe5b18c56020", "text": "Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bffafb1c110a47aebd15ce939c82941e", "text": "This is more of an economics question than personal finance. That said, I already started writing an answer before I noticed, so here are a few points. I'll leave it open for others to expand the list. Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages The flip-side to the argument that more users means more stability is that the impact of a strong economy (on the value of the currency) is diluted somewhat by all the other users. Indeed, if adopted by another country with similar or greater GDP, that economy could end up becoming the primary driver of the currency's value. It may be harder to control counterfeiting. Perhaps not in the issuing country itself, but in foreign countries that do not adopt new bills as quickly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27b7f7ddd7fa9a188b864065a49e34de", "text": "I don't follow Bitcoin but that seems like a really good service to offer to businesses. It protects their money and it nets out a commission (presumably) on each transaction. Plus, it helps create more acceptance of Bitcoin as a currency which leads to more transactions. Brilliant really.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d51b9616110f5402fe4bb70de5b97b68", "text": "\"In my experience working at a currency exchange money service business in the US: Flat fees are the \"\"because we can\"\" fee on average. These can be waived on certain dollar values at some banks or MSBs, and sometimes can even be haggled. If you Google EURUSD, as an example, you also get something like $1.19 at 4pm, 9/18/2017. If you look at the actual conversion that you got, you may find your bank hit you with $1.30 or something close to convert from USD to Euro (in other words, you payed 10% more USD per Euro). And, if you sell your Euro directly back, you might find you only make $1.07. This spread is the real \"\"fee\"\" and covers a number of things including risk or liquidity. You'll see that currencies with more volatility or less liquidity have a much wider spread. Some businesses even go as far as to artificially widen the spread for speculators (see IQD, VND, INR, etc.). Typically if you see a 3% surcharge on international ATM or POS transactions, that's the carrier such as Visa or Mastercard taking their cut for processing. Interestingly enough, you also typically get the carrier-set exchange rate overseas when using your card. In other words, your bank has a cash EURUSD of $1.30 but the conversion you get at the ATM is Visa's rate, hence the Visa fee (but it's typically a nicer spread, or it's sometimes the international spot rate depending on the circumstances, due to the overhead of electronic transactions). You also have to consider the ATM charging you a separate fee for it's own operation. In essence, the fees exist to pad every player involved except you. Some cards do you a solid by advertising $0 foreign exchange fees. Unfortunately these cards only insulate you from the processing/flat fees and you may still fall prey to the fee \"\"hidden\"\" in the spread. In the grander scheme of things, currency exchange is a retail operation. They try to make money on every step that requires them to expend a resource. If you pay 10% on a money transaction, this differs actually very little from the mark-up you pay on your groceries, which varies from 3-5% on dry food, to 20% on alcohol such as wine.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f223389ac294be1c02dff830429e81dd", "text": "First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "47511a8da9d1996e2c74fb9a799faffd", "text": "I would say that there is no real difference. Asset management companies that is part of large banking groups usually seat in separate entities and operate independently from the rest of the bank. Assuming proper procedures (and regulators usually check that) are in place they will not share information with the rest of the bank and their assets are clearly segregated from the rest of the bank. They have the same fiduciary duties as an independent AM and are probably using the broker/dealer services of other banks as well as their parent. Reputation is a key issue for banks and conflict of interests are usually managed properly. Independence also comes and goes. The corporate history of Neuberger Berman is a good example. Neuberger Berman was once an independent asset manager. In 2003, it merged with Lehman Brothers, thus loosing its independence. When Lehman went bankrupt in 2008, NB did not join its parent company in bankruptcy and did not lose the assets of its clients. The company continued to operate until it was acquired by the management. Finally it is mostly a question of marketing and positioning.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e784c91a357f8a6f43b6cecad1872133", "text": "My uncle successfully manages a portfolio for an investment firm in New York. I believe he works with somewhere around 2.5 billion dollars, mostly endowments from schools and other funds like that. I know that he had to work very hard to get where he is today but he's been rewarded with excellent compensation and a lot of freedom to do his job how he sees fit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f7ed281d9e2247fd4711722f1855ffd", "text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fd34136db8af0881a1428438fb5726", "text": "\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cec3ef51a22422e79fd6f350848ec70", "text": "Reading the descriptions on Amazon.com it appears Investments is a graduate text and Elements of Investments is the undergraduate version of the text.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7a0db3a6ebee00e142ce84292f72158", "text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bc6f8bc8f09c67ea95d522896ed8f58", "text": "Put simply: Financial Services provides or facilitates access to capital in some capacity, and are companies unto themselves (TD Ameritrade, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc), this also includes accounting companies which provide financial information, and insurance companies that deal with risk. Corporate Finance is part of all businesses in any industry (So for example Starbucks has a finance department, and those employees are doing corporate finance), and plans how to use capital to fund a company's projects and make sure there is sufficient cash on hand as it's needed for daily operations. Corporate Finance interacts with Financial Services to access the capital needed to fund the business's activities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54", "text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9363e182020d78bdc5050c5969a94da", "text": "\"The balance sheet for a bank is the list of assets and liabilities that the bank directly is responsible for. This would be things like loans the bank issues and accounts with the bank. Banks can make both \"\"balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning a loan that says on the balance sheet - one the bank gains the profits from but holds the risks for also. They can also make \"\"off balance sheet\"\" loans, meaning they securitize the loan (sell it off, such as the mortgage backed securities). Most major banks, i.e. Chase, Citibank, etc., could be called \"\"balance sheet\"\" banks because at least some portion of their lending comes from their balance sheet. Not 100% by any means, they participate in the security swaps extensively just like everyone does, but they do at least some normal, boring lending just as you would explain a bank to a five year old. Bank takes in deposits from account holders, loans that money out to people who want to buy homes or start businesses. However, some (particularly smaller) firms don't work this way - they don't take responsibility for the money or the loans. They instead \"\"manage assets\"\" or some similar term. I think of it like the difference between Wal-Mart and a consignment store. Wal-Mart buys things from its distributors, and sells them, taking the risk (of the item not selling) and the reward (of the profit from selling) to itself. On the other hand, a consignment store takes on neither: it takes a flat fee to host your items in its store, but takes no risk (you own the items) nor the majority of the profit. In this case, Mischler Financial Group is not a bank per se - they don't have accounts; they manage funds, instead. Note the following statement on their Services page for example: Mischler Financial Group holds no risk positions and no unwanted inventory of securities, which preserves the integrity of our capital and assures our clients that we will be able to obtain bids and offers for them regardless of adverse market conditions. They're not taking your money and then making their own investments; they're advising you how to invest your money, or they're helping do it for you, but it's your money going out and your risk (and reward).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34480337053b524ffb7b54a83e1dde6b", "text": "\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30d8cfeb8bae5fd75350f26e5852946c", "text": "the difference is whose money is being invested. when you deposit money in a bank, it is FDIC insured and capital requirements are set to ensure the preservation of your deposits. if the bank wants to make huge derivative bets, with leverage inherent in the instrument or provided by another bank, deposits are involved in the equation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d68b02b590f00b6b9e569a4648f50fa8", "text": "\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1712afdad5c21cbba461f9e26c7cb02", "text": "The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8627b383cbdb6db68614a5784acb1870", "text": "In view of business, we have to book the entries. Business view, owner and business are different. When capital is invested in business by owner, in future business has to repay it. That's why, capital always credit. When we come about bank (business prospective) - cash, bank, fd are like assets which can help in the business. Bank is current asset (Real account) - Debit (what comes into the business) Credit (what goes out of the business) Hence credit and debit differs from what type of account is it.... credit - when business liables debit - what business has and receivables", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3439297b29f6ed71eb08afad392cfde", "text": "I used to work for blackrock, although not in the finance side of the house. Which coast are you on? There's still a big difference in culture - west coast used to be BGI and was acquired in 2009, doubling the size of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f", "text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b12b0aabd80cb5c2609e5f39ae7a7ad3", "text": "The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce931d868b678112c38d510efe1c7d3", "text": "\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45185420c394230f6ea4c738968825fd", "text": "To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6b44c3e9f0f7b02c284a23f945e7de1", "text": "This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db76c8b2fee1cabf362f8e88da5c5936", "text": "The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e444f254d171aade7bf0b62c90b74d", "text": "\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9a6362547ac6859733c2e74e823f56da", "text": "Japan printed 11 trillion yen on Monday. They do this by monetizing their own debt. The increase in the supply of yen affects the value of the currency. Strange thought, I know. Greece has an economic crisis because they were borrowing at rates that AAA rated countries do. Someone noticed that they weren't exactly a AAA country when they needed to ask for bailout money. Since all government debt is considered risk free and same as cash, this came as a shock to most 'investors' hence the 'crisis' edit: my bad, was 11 trillion, not 9 trillion", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef900298081d52c0b7a1e22a0c5c2834", "text": "You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65a545ad655f7500a92ec4ec4f1f0f4f", "text": "\"**Japan Has Entered The Next Phase: Unlimited Money Printing** Investors have been watching Japan for over a decade now, wondering what happens to a country that has a debt-to-GDP ratio of 234%--too big to realistically pay off. We are starting to get the answer. For review, Japan was the first country in the modern central banking era to begin a policy of quantitative easing--an unconventional form of monetary policy that is used when interest rates have already been lowered to the zero bound. Quantitative easing, which involves the purchase of \"\"printed\"\" money to buy government bonds, was widely viewed in Japan as a failure, but what most people don't understand about Japan's early QE experiments is that they were very small--less than $20 billion a month. It took Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to ramp up asset purchases significantly in what was called \"\"Abenomics.\"\" Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister. Photographer: Akio Kon/Bloomberg The results of Abenomics have been mixed, but the stock market is certainly higher and the yen is certainly lower, although it's not clear that either of those two developments have really helped. Japan's stock market is mostly foreign-owned, and the weaker yen didn't materially help the balance of trade. Still, there are a lot of people who said that Japan's endless debt deflation would have been worse without Abenomics, so it has remained firmly in place for five years. Abenomics rapidly began to cause distortions, as accelerated asset purchases caused the Bank of Japan to hold a huge percentage of outstanding government bonds, at 40% and rising, as well as being the majority holder of index ETFs. Investors who traffic in JGBs have remarked that the market now functions very poorly, since so much of the market is held by the BOJ. It seems that will get worse, not better. Last year the BOJ implemented a policy of yield curve targeting (ostensibly to help the banks), keeping the overnight rate negative but targeting a 10 year rate at zero percent. The BOJ has been buying longer-dated bonds for years, but this was the first time it ever explicitly capped a rate at longer maturities. Some people wondered how committed the BOJ would be to maintain that cap in the event that JGBs were caught up in a global duration selloff, which we experienced in the last two weeks. As 10-year JGB yields rose above 0.10% last week, the BOJ announced that it was prepared to buy an unlimited amount of bonds to keep yields close to zero percent. As you can imagine, buying an unlimited amount of 10-year JGBs involves printing a theoretically unlimited amount of yen, so the yen weakened significantly on the news.  It still remains about ten percent stronger than it was in 2015. We are getting closer to the endgame for Japan. What happens if yields rise further? What happens if the yen depreciates significantly? How much could it depreciate? Could Japan have a currency crisis? What happens if the BOJ ends up owning the entire bond market? These are the questions that investors are asking, and nobody really knows the answers. We are in uncharted territory. I believe that a currency crisis isn't just possible--it's inevitable. And it probably happens at about the time that the BOJ owns all or nearly all of the JGB market, and has to resort to canceling the debt. This sounds like a neat magic trick to make the debt go away, but the laws of economics are not to be conned. Anything is possible--a currency crash, a bond market crash--anything. This is the very definition of debt monetization that resulted in hyperinflation in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Is Japan different? We shall see. We will find out soon, as Japan has taken a major step in that direction.  Jared Dillian is the author of All the Evil of This World, and the editor of the 10th Man newsletter for Mauldin Economics. Subscribe here. *Forbes articles have 8 tracking cookies and 9 tracking scripts. This comment has none.*(https://www.reddit.com/r/raws/comments/68xk37/about/)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "768afd430beaddf843064787b4537b0f", "text": "If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots' and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter. The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content. Oh, and it's purpose? To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also. A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency. Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad. You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO? are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load? Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc. Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there? In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'??? Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt. Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero. There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away. Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ee281926e6a79e88acbe72e41096f9", "text": "\"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually \"\"print\"\" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created \"\"from thin air\"\" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as \"\"printing money\"\". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them. As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to \"\"contract\"\" the supply of money back, they just \"\"destroy\"\" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again \"\"destroy\"\" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity. The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6aa5920172d01e15ecd2a8c400c64e", "text": "\"Bankruptcy is a way to the fiat currency system to regulate itself. The current system assume that there will always be more debts than money available. Since money is created with debt already attached to it, the difference between \"\"real\"\" money, and \"\"on paper\"\" money build up over time. When this disparity become to big, bankruptcies need to occur to bring those two number closer to each other. It's like earthquakes if you like, the tectonic plates build up tension that need to be released in many small shocks, or a few big shocks. The everyday bankruptcies represent the small quakes, and big recession represent too much build up that need to be released in one big shocks. It's a very high level explanation and it doesn't go into details, but it's roughly why it happens. EDIT: I wasn't saying that it was bad or not, I was simply explaining bankruptcy and why it's bound to happen. If you don't like the analogy, it's no reason for downvote. I know it may not be clear for everyone, but if you do not agree, please explain yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "119a3ad16226b55f87fc67344cc171f8", "text": "\"&gt; but the buying power of that money can be significantly reduced to the point where it's fundamentally useless, i.e. inter-war Germany and many countries in South and Central America. That's true, but *how* does that come about? The effect on buying power stems from the level of spending in the present period. Too little leaves you anywhere from outright deflation and contraction to weaker growth falling short of capacity. Too much reaches capacity and keeps spending, bidding up prices and driving down purchasing power. It has nothing to do with debt:GDP or interest payments. &gt; Germany managed to skate by by creating a new Deutschmark in a confidence trick, and it worked because Germany is a solid, iron clad manufacturing powerhouse of a lot of stuff. There are two important differences between inter-war Germany and the US. First is that inter-war Germany *lost a war*. This real shock is kind of important. When you're talking about buying power of money, one side of it is the amount of money in circulation but the other side of it is how much real output there is to buy and German real output capacity collapsed after the war. Their most productive regions were occupied territory and they were no longer a powerhouse manufacturing a lot of stuff, driving down the value of their currency. So lesson number one from Germany: real output collapse harms your currency. The second problem is that losing a war left Germany saddled with war reparations denominated in foreign currency. When you're on the hook for something you don't print you're in a situation where you can run out of money and that's exactly what happened to them. They tried printing more of their own currency to buy the foreign stuff with but that quickly drove down the value of German currency. So lesson number two from Germany is you don't want to be on the hook for a currency you don't issue. Put the two together and you have a real supply shock + foreign-denominated debt eviscerating the buying power of German currency. It wasn't debt:GDP but the real basis for their economy collapsing out from under them pushed along by a need for foreign currency. &gt;My question is, at what point do we engage Washington's unlimited money printing presses until we reach that point? In answer to your question, the printing presses are what funds the real economy. The worry in terms of avoiding \"\"that point\"\" is in making sure we keep that real economy productive and fully funded. Ironically, taking our eye off the ball to focus on budget balance at the expense of real output pushes the economy in the direction you're afraid of going. See also: the euro zone today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdf71bd9c994ed091173b092c7fda40f", "text": "&gt; Story printed literally as the only thing that can hold on value to the currency.. Japan has huge current account and trade surplus. they have to print money or else Yen will shoot up to the moon. Japan cannot afford over valued currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2393a44dc0901577a7086d3f55c7bdc7", "text": "\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b56622ebc3733c8796be7e12c241770e", "text": "Yes, and heres some pretty scary stats. Global debt went from about 200% of GPD in 2007 to 325% of GDP today. Global Debt is about 2.5x more than the value of global broad money (all the money in the world). The value of the derivatives market has increased to 6x the value of all global debt. Meaning a global market of packaging and trading debt exists that is 6x the value of the debt being traded, and 15x the value of all the money in the world.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802", "text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90bde0cc066745cdff7035c91c4165a8", "text": "\"[There's about 10 trillion in gold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve) and about [2.8 trillion of US cash](http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-value-of-united-states-currency-in-circulation/) in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. For example, about [4 trillion a **day**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market) changes hands in the currency markets alone - if that were required to be cash or gold it would be impossible to do so, and you'd suffer from more poorly priced goods since markets could not adjust as quickly, so vendors would charge more premium to handle the risk. Yes, there is not (and has not been) enough cash in circulation to run the world economy. There is also vastly too little gold, unless you want to strangle commerce due to not being enough money to trade. &gt; \"\"posing as the money supply\"\" All money is debt, and always has been. Money is a placeholder that you can trade for goods *later* meaning someone owes you a thing. The value of that money is the debt they (or society) owes you for something you already did to get that money. So there is no posing, just most don't understand money, how it originated, why it exists, or why it works. They never ask the question \"\"how does money come into existance\"\". &gt; Does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? Probably not much. Loans are made expecting some default, so the interest others pay on their loans helps offset the defaulted ones. If loans become riskier, the interest demanded increases, so the lender still (if they do their risk analysis well and no external events break their expectations) makes money. When you pay off a debt, that money, as you're paying it, is likely being lent in other loans, so paying it off does not do much. If you could pay off about 100 trillion in debt into the US economy in one payment you might break some things :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57904482f79435e2e4f514c6c20f95a3", "text": "They're not going to do anything about it. Washington needs the debt wheel to keep spinning, or the Dollar will lose its position as the Reserve Currency. Then all hell would break loose. Powerful countries like Japan are going to have to take the initiative. And apparently they are starting to. It has to be countries like Japan because if a weak country tries this, they'll get invaded.", "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": "4b239353cfdc455d5b2bc50df36c11c4", "text": "\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e52bf1749687a26ac564b1945ae7f73f", "text": "I believe that article provides some good reasons, though it may be a bit light on technical details and there are likely other reasons a company would do it. So, if they can finance for less then they would lose to taxes by bringing the money home and they do not take on too much debt, this will likely work just fine and increase share holder value. Hopefully, someone else can provide some other reasonable scenarios. The bottom line is that it does not matter how they finance the share buybacks and/or dividend payments as long as they do not shoot themselves in the foot while doing it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc2bc5b74217b1974606d5671b2f157d", "text": "It's a tax shelter. Foreign affiliates hold most of Microsoft's cash and investments. The cost of borrowing is much cheaper than repatriating the money and paying taxes. Those bonds are selling at rates similar to US Treasury Debt. Also, many people and organizations with lots of assets still borrow money for day to day expenses. Why? You tend to make a better return on investments which are committed for a number of years, and the timing of income from those investments may not coincide with your expenses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a8d7995d7303fd33d5e096f3635f99c", "text": "\"There is a substantial likelihood over the next several years that the US Dollar will experience inflation. (You may have heard terms like \"\"Quantitative Easing.\"\") With inflation, the value of each dollar you have will go down. This also means that the value of each dollar you owe will go down as well. So, taking out a loan / issuing a bond at a very good rate, converting it into an asset that's a better way to store value (possibly including stock in a big stable company like MSFT) and then watching inflation reduce the (real) value of the loan faster than the interest piles up... that's like getting free money. Combine that with the tax-shelter games alluded to by everyone else, and it starts to look like a very profitable endeavour.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cae49475cac493413300539035dcc851", "text": "When I play Railroad Tycoon III, I often send my company deep into debt to get cash on hand to buy back shares, effectively increasing my ownership of the company as an absolute percentage. Then I issue massive dividends until my company goes bankrupt, and start a new company. It's a way to shuttle money borrowed against a company's assets into my personal bank account at no risk to me. In the MSFT case, maybe they think there will be inflation and this is a hedge against holding so many dollars in cash already. If they can borrow a couple billion in 2010 dollars and pay it back in 2015 dollars, they're probably going to end up ahead if all they do is buy back shares. Paying dividends with the money seems stupid vs. buying back shares - they're just driving up income taxes for investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3efe3ae43a81233cc493fe7893ce776", "text": "My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a", "text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43f2d72be1a3b0a5c3f9a5aa9964ed05", "text": "If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd114ba8024fb450b6316413d117d97", "text": "who issued stock typically support it when the stock price go down. No, not many company do that as it is uneconomical for them to do so. Money used up in buying back equity is a wasteful use of a firm's capital, unless it is doing a buyback to return money to shareholders. Does the same thing happen with government bonds? Not necessarily again here. Bond trading is very different from equities trading. There are conditions specified in the offer document on when an issuer can recall bonds(to jack up the price of an oversold bond), even government bonds have them. The actions of the government has a bigger ripple effect as compared to a firm. The government can start buying back bonds to increase it's price, but it will stoke inflation because of the increase in the supply of money in the market, which may or mayn't be desirable. Then again people holding the bond would have to incentivized to sell the bond. Even during the Greek fiasco, the Greek government wasn't buying Greek bonds as it had no capital to buy. Printing more euros wasn't an option as no assets to back the newly printed money and the ECB would have stopped them from being accepted. And generally buying back isn't useful, because they have to return the principal(which might run into billions, invested in long term projects by the government and cannot be liquidated immediately) while servicing a bond is cheaper and investing the proceeds from the bond sale is more useful while being invested in long term projects. The government can just roll over the bonds with a new issue and refrain from returning the capital till it is in a position to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6", "text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518b52c68869a5db8e185a64c74529c7", "text": "\"The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly \"\"private equity\"\" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of \"\"leveraging up\"\" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39d9fb59d7fa1dca7f75c482b5943014", "text": "According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though.", "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": "c5bf73ff2c8973bf282521eda8b1c959", "text": "Ask your accountant about convertable preference shares. This would permit you to loan money to your company and then convert the debt to equity, should you so choose, at a later stage. As with the answer by bstpierre, these are all contractual arrangements conducted at arms-length.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13741d54162a9c82b58e040a60a81243", "text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58bb884158f8aea9bc18842b1ccdee1a", "text": "When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money. If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds. Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds . Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74825d07b4fbdcb1d73b49bba074e785", "text": "Ford paid off a tremendous amount of debt prior to reinstating the dividend. While they still have a sizable amount of debt on the balance sheet, they've been able to refinance this debt to a much more affordable point. Their free cash flow + cash on the balance could enable them to pay it off in the very near future (12 - 16 months). Most auto companies have debt on their balance sheet if they choose to offer financial services. Their overall credit rating (if you really think such things are valid) has also improved. Generally speaking, I agree its a poor idea to give money back to shareholders if you have high-interest bearing debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f78be2f8b571feb3fbeefc80e83873a0", "text": "\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "283fc5c844dfed1d7a837cf58c8a42b5", "text": "The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fc75f7221b7f6989bcfc65a0566b4e9", "text": "\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4d2473d001e4be93bf68b6de5f0ab77", "text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "87b5c999ab6c956258894265f2a2b654", "text": "This is a question of how does someone value a business. Typically, it is some function of how much the company owns, how much the company owes, how risky is the company's business, and how much the company makes in profit. For example if a company (or investment) make $100/year, every year no matter what, how much would you pay for that? If you pay $1,000 you'll make 10% each year on your investment. Is that a good enough return? If you think the risk of the company requires a 20% payoff, you shouldn't pay more than $500 for the company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b77ce1eda52bbf046d67670793dc2e8d", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.", "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": "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": "821e3eecf2857fc1405d1f4b33e8d359", "text": "The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4bef758a078cff5aded80dbc6fc24be", "text": "\"Matt explains the study numbers in his answer, but those are the valuation of the brand, not the value of the company or how \"\"rich\"\" the company is. Presuming that you're asking the value of the company, the usual way for a publicly traded company to be valued is by the market capitalization (1). Market capitalization is a fairly simple measure, basically the total value of all the shares of stock in that company. You can find the market cap for any publicly traded company on any of the usual finance sites like Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. If by rich you mean the total value of assets (assets being all property, including cash, real property, equipment, and licenses) a company owns, that information is included in a publicly traded company's quarterly SEC filing and investor releases, but isn't usually listed on the popular finance sites. An example can be seen at Duke Energy's Investor Relation Site (the same information can be found for all companies on EDGAR, the SEC's search tool). If you open the most recent 8-K (quarterly filing), and go to page 8, you can see that they have $33B+ in assets, and a high level breakdown of those. Note that the numbers are given in millions of dollars For a privately held company this information may or may not be available and you'd have to track it down if it is available. I picked Duke Energy because it's the first thing that popped into my mind. I have no affiliation with Duke, and I don't directly own any of their stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6", "text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.", "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": "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": "e656547f1bc1d937b6442ccc45a63ab2", "text": "When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "718c94c2f02d2b07d82175dba8776ff6", "text": "\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1343c7ed17d2c9d9ea47022e828c951c", "text": "Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30c1a9481ded4a26c6feb5502718faa", "text": "My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building. Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8", "text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924", "text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8a189b80c56ab2a8eb314620583105a8", "text": "\"The Business Dictionary has three definitions of \"\"turnover\"\". When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fb52419d4872fd7d43717254d06fd548", "text": "\"On 3# - My company is constantly complaining about saving money, cutting costs. Then we have these events, and banners, and trinkets and bullshit about our new \"\"mission statement\"\" - everyone here just sees them pissing away money (millions) while bitching about money. That's a fucking drag on company morale. Then again, #8 - my job is being phased out, so it's not like I really like this place anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be21d05ed1779908307183b4400187e", "text": "That was a quote from the article itself... There's a good link involved in that excerpt... Read it... Job lock is a real thing... That's the only reason people remain at the large corporations that treat them just like a number and don't give a crap about them... People work for large companies with fucked up schedules, commutes and often health detrimental duties... Yet they don't want to adventure to the unknown where there's a chance they will not get the same benefit package... As anecdote, I live in Rural Washington state, a lot of Union people travel to Seattle for work... This is a very long, and stressful commute, I-5, 16, and 405 are not fun... Some of them will spend upwards of five or six hours a day just on the road... when you ask them why... It's because of the pay and the benefit package... when you factor in the extra hours of driving, the pay really is not that huge of a difference, and the toll on your body that that kind of commute takes is horrific... But they wouldn't dare look at small companies Closer by that may not be able to offer them the pension, and health insurance plan that is mandated when working for Amazon, or building for JP Morgan... So they just give in, become a number, and on paper, and empirically, it is a net gain... But the intangible effects on their psyche, happiness, are quite clear....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a38bafeb735f43826f9b6342241c2be", "text": "So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs. If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory. Got it. Thanks. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd6b1bfb16e4b4349123fb95103e97c", "text": "\"It means price movements in the past do not affect price movements in the future. Think of the situation of a coin, if you flip it once, and then you flip it a second time, the results are independent of each other. If the first time, you flipped a HEAD, it does not mean that the coin will remember it, and produce a TAIL the second time. This is the meaning of \"\"memoryless\"\". FYI, stock markets are clearly not memoryless. It is just an assumption for academic purposes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad", "text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84db8928e71914d29c1ede1652c8857d", "text": "That looks like a Bloomberg terminal. And like @Jer said, it would appear to be the symbol for the S&P 500 E-mini index future. Although it doesn't look right all on its own, as it should have a modifier indicating the month (or quarter) of expiry. However, since it appears on a Bloomberg terminal in the image, I checked a source for Bloomberg Symbol Lists and found one of two possibilities for ES1. It is most likely the S&P 500 e-mini future: CME E-Mini Futures E-Mini S&P 500 ES1 INDEX the only alternative was LIFFE 3 Month Euroswiss ES1 COMDTY I think the former is far more likely, as the latter has the COMDTY commodity tag instead of INDEX as the tag in the image. Also, it isn't the ESI which pertains to Ethibel Sustainability Indices and something with the Eurozone (also Bloomberg Indices). Here we go! Excerpt straight is from a presentation presentation on charting from a business school PDF see pp.12-13, and appears to be a straight excerpt from September 2007 Bloomberg documentation. I didn't know any other way to imbed it besides taking a screen shot then uploading to imgur. Or of course, see pp.12-13 in the referenced PDF I've attached. See", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91d757f3506cda4e6a14d708282d8c13", "text": "Rather large, incorrect assumption for someone who wants to chat about logic. I think it's a clickbait article that doesn't articulate anything other than defending Damore, *which isn't the point of the article, based on the title.* Please, if you're going to suggest the CEO of Google should resign over this manifesto in the NYT, you better have something more than some emotional digs and crying about leadership by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of what it entails in total. That's why I don't think he should write another piece, sure as hell not on this subject. But I appreciate your armchair analysis bub.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2647687762360c49bb6114991554d0de", "text": "I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "059208f33a4bafb29026f32af0cbcc61", "text": "\"I would look at the wording of the question. \"\"Expect\"\" does not necessarily mean that they plan to work until they die, or that they want to work until they die. \"\"Expect\"\" here likely means that they think they will have to work until they die - in particular, think that they will not be able to save up enough to retire. Thinking that you will have to work until you die doesn't mean you shouldn't save money - that's just giving up if you don't, right? Instead you save up money and hopefully you're one of the luckier ones.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d85158f0a82f5d0aa198c6541dd827e0", "text": "Thank you very much. &gt;Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment This made my light bulb just go off. Thank you! --- I'm going to have to digest the rest of the material slowly. It makes sense, but I want to get it 100%. Thanks a lot!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56721438fa6acaf9a0b838542836851b", "text": "This is where someone hand waves: innovation, competitive spirit, technology, hard work, and values -- code words for -- cut everything to the bone, replace with automation as much as possible, and/or acquire work-slaves, rinse-repeat until an exit strategy is found, bail out at optimal point and leave someone else to clean up the mess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "630322d6c195ac675508693c89b9b106", "text": "\"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power. For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company. Also, stock splits are not ordinarily \"\"triggered\"\". Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally. I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a \"\"poison pill\"\". In these arrangements, the \"\"pill\"\" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold. What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it. Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a1e9da8ed7b56d4014e73204605cf7e", "text": "Ideally, you would be correct. There is an inverse correlation between wages and turnover rate... to a point. We live in an economy where, unfortunately, there is a ready supply of labor to take the place of those who quit or otherwise leave the company. This brings the value of your current employees down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03765888936dcdd3e8e5bb21462ea911", "text": "Owning a home is cheaper than paying rent. You ever think the turnover is so high because it's a shitty work environment for what their paid? How about you go sit at the Walmart employee smoke area. All they do is bitch for their 30 minute break about how their job is miserable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2687a838a4c2f0effb07b4ec3585b60", "text": "Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "07d96288f612a95c2bbec1db71f046b7", "text": "The store keeps track of what you buy. It is all part of their big data. The knowledge of what you buy helps them project future sales. It allows them to target their marketing. But maybe even more importantly they can sell this knowledge to outside companies. They aren't going to give away that information to another company that would love to have that data, just so they could sell it. Stores use those loyalty cards to be able to link your household to those purchases. Those discounts, or free products, are what they use to entice you to give up your privacy. The fact that in your town young adults love caramel apples, even more than the town next door, makes them confident that your town will love caramel apple scented shampoo. Thus they send you coupons when it become available. They will also sell this knowledge to the shampoo companies. Do some stores make it possible for you to download the data? Yes they do. Apple stores send all receipts via email. Kohls allows me to see detail information about my transactions on line. There must be others. I don't know if any are grocery stores.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "543f4652e82ee1c5329dcd9006612b55", "text": "As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83826f181cbed6fb08aa3d823a249337", "text": "The stores track the individual items for inventory planning and marketing purposes. Having worked in the transaction processing business for a time (writing one), I can say with confidence that the credit/debit card companies do not receive an itemized list of the items involved in the transaction. There is usually a description field in the information transmitted to the processor, which may or may not contain useful information. But it is not big enough to contain an itemized grocery list of any size. And it is not standardized in any way that would facilitate reliable parsing. There may be an amount of metadata about the transaction that would indicate the types of products involved in the transaction, which they can also infer from the merchant reporting the transaction. There are efforts to increase the amount of data reported, but they are not widely used yet, due to the overwhelming numbers of banks that would need to be upgraded. These efforts are rolling out only in specific and limited uses where the banks involved are willing to upgrade software and equipment. For now, the best way to know what you bought is to keep your receipts from the store. Shoeboxes work great for this. So do smartphone cameras and a folder on your hard drive. There are also mobile apps that track receipts for you, and may even try to OCR the data for you.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "88009ffa9f0e9233ee90f4ca2dbdd79c", "text": "Keeping a receipt does allow you to verify that the expected amount was charged/debited it also can help when you need to return an item. Regarding double charging, the credit card companies look for that. If the same card is used at the same vendor for the same exact amount in a short period of time the credit card company will flag the transaction. They assume either a mistake was made, or fraud is being attempted. The most likely result is that the transaction is denied. A dishonest vendor can write down the card number, expiration date and CVV number. Then after you leave make up a new transaction for any amount they want. You of course wouldn't have a paper receipt for this fraudulent transaction. The key is reviewing your transaction history every few days: looking for unexpected amounts, locations, or number of transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39ce77a9a6f73da8194f996943405e13", "text": "\"It's very straightforward for an honest vendor to refund the charge, and the transaction only costs him a few pennies at most. If you initiate a chargeback, the merchant is immediately charged an irreversible fee of about $20 simply as an administrative fee. He'll also have to refund the charge if it's reversed. To an honest merchant who would've happily refunded you, it's unfair and hurtful. In any case, now that he's out-of-pocket on the administrative fee, his best bet is to fight the chargeback - since he's already paid for the privilege to fight. Also, a chargeback is a \"\"strike\"\" against the merchant. If his chargeback rate is higher than the norm in his industry, they may raise his fees, or ban him entirely from taking Visa/MC. For a small merchant doing a small volume, a single chargeback can have an impact on his overall chargeback rate. The \"\"threshold of proof\"\" for a chargeback varies by patterns of fraud and the merchant's ability to recover. If you bought something readily fungible to cash - like a gift card, casino chips, concert tickets etc., forget it. Likewise if you already extracted the value (last month's Netflix bill). Credit card chargeback only withdraws a payment method. Your bill is still due and payable. The merchant is within his rights to \"\"dun\"\" you for payment and send you to collections or court. Most merchants don't bother, because they know it'll be a fight, an unpleasant distraction and bad for business. But they'd be within their rights. Working with the merchant to settle the matter is a final resolution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6b6c0b21e83c57a3b62918af7f3f1bf", "text": "\"* Don't underestimate the power of facial recognition wizardry. * No, you don't have to show ID to activate the cards. But keep in mind that they know which cards were activated. There is a paper trail. I'm sure Amex, Visa, MC would happily deactivate the cards for them. Target just has to report that the cards were activated using fraud/theft. * If you took advantage of this \"\"deal\"\" your best bet is to get the prepaid credit cards and spend the money asap at another store (walmart) before they are deactivated. * If indeed this legally is considered fraud, and they go after you for it, you could end up in a giant heap of trouble as many laws have been broken. And, if you use any of the \"\"fraudulent\"\" CC's to make online purchases from a company in another state you could face even more federal charges.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6c6b035064b9df1adf8d9f29e0d9c0", "text": "In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities. I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5825b7937a3c46f4dad210d283bc7aa", "text": "Also see who has the authority to delete bills or items on bills. This was a huge scam with some servers I've worked with. If you can delete an entire bill that was paid in cash then that's money in your pocket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846cc8abedf02be2afab8ad9cbc9cfd9", "text": "You have paid the vendor (school?), etc, $75.75 too much, for whatever reason. They can send you back this money, or it can apply against a future bill. This is common when I pay my credit card in full, but also have a store return. The bill can show a credit, but it will quickly get used up by new purchases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6", "text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f66e25bacedbdcc71660c7a8b122bb2e", "text": "The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state). Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon* - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that). As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real: *it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39f3a8221f16c84c72aefff9e8144049", "text": "To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30c431a4738f2c89c49acec373d3c91a", "text": "\"Every legitimate claim I've filed regarding fraudulent charges on my card includes signing a legal document. If your \"\"friend\"\" completes such a document and you can verify that it is untrue, he's in deeper trouble than you. Unfortunately, if he's successful in filing a claim that is later proven to be fraudulent, it puts your account in a poor status until it's fully cleared. Even then, corporate inertia may result in longer duration inaccurate information. Once you've cleared the fraudulent claim, you'll want to contact your credit agency to ensure they are provided with correct and proper documentation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69eacef6ab630c1a74ab135faf233369", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ca7447f38a27e878762e5755e08b164", "text": "You will need to first try and get the seller to refund. (Get the name of the person you talked to and a date and time). Then you can contact the bank the card was issued through and dispute the charge. I would make sure that you retain any proof that you purchased one item and received something other than what you purchased. The seller does have recourse if they did fulfill their side of the transaction but if they are a legitimate merchant and actually sent you the wrong product most will not bother.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9c2e358eafa3b0780056c5c7b722068", "text": "Can they? Sure. Should they? Absolutely not. You're exactly right that it's dishonest, but it's not like it's a crime. Your best recourse, as is often the case, is simply to stop buying from this site, and cancel any existing orders. Shop with companies that exhibit trustworthy behavior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1321dc071d64c45d197ac4f381d77ac9", "text": "\"It surely doesn't HURT to keep a receipt. I tend to pile up receipts in my desk drawer, never look at them, and then every few months throw them all out. If a vendor writes a receipt by hand or if the cash register is not tied in to the credit card system, keeping a receipt could give you evidence against mistakes or fraud. Like if the vendor gives you a receipt for $10 and then sends a transaction to the credit card company for $20, you could use the receipt as evidence of the problem. But if the vendor is trying to really cheat you, the most likely thing for him to do is run the legitimate transaction through, and then some time later run a fake transaction. So say today you go to vendor X, buy something for $20, and he bills your credit card $20. Then a few days later he bills you another $100 even though you never came back to the store. Sure, you have a receipt for $20. But you don't have a receipt for the $100 because you never authorized that transaction. Your receipt proves nothing -- presumably you're not disputing the $20. If you complain to the bank or go to the police or whatever, saying, \"\"Hey look, I don't have a receipt for the $100\"\" doesn't prove anything. How do they know you didn't just throw it away? It's difficult to prove that you never had such a receipt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38ec38eaad11c8b8a112cf547e69262e", "text": "I think you're dancing with the line here, this question is hard to back up without opinions and could really be three different questions. I'm going to push aside the part about quality and reliability, that could be an emotional subject. So from a price standpoint, there's virtually no disagrement that it makes financial sense to buy a used car instead of a new car. The majority of new cars lose the majority of their resale value within the first year or two. If you purchase said car after someone else has used it for the first two years, you just avoided all of that depreciation yourself, and you're still going to be purchasing a perfectly reliable car as long as you are diligent in the buying process.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e31d8c3f836d3ec8d604107df90b5081", "text": "For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bcbb94c232d3c08232b50344bfc12be", "text": "The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "409ac925651cc4ebb63b381c55fee2a8", "text": "Sounds fishy - taking out more debt to pay the main mortgage down faster? There are a couple of issues I can see: I would think that a much more sensible strategy with a lot less risk is to save up extra cash and send your lender a check every quarter or six months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9480629b3fcd1e52c37b21d24bc2587a", "text": "\"I took a second mortgage when I moved house because I had a long-term fixed rate mortgage that would have incurred punitive fees if I had cancelled it. Rather than doing that I took a second mortgage over the same term for the difference. As my second mortgage was with the same lender, they still had \"\"First Charge\"\" on the property (This means that in the event of default they have first call on the property to recoup their losses), so the interest rate was not higher (actually it was slightly less than my first mortgage). My case is not that usual, normally a 'second mortgage' is with a separate provider that takes a \"\"Second Charge\"\" on the property. The interest rates are normally higher as a result as there is more chance that the lender will not recoup their money in case of a default as the first charge has priority. The second mortgage may still be cheaper than an unsecured loan, as the second charge provides some collateral, this might make it attractive if a sudden expense needs to be covered.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfa0272d5b3a2671dfda9ee449eee319", "text": "\"littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold - Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line \"\"extra principal.\"\" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up. Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482", "text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48868ffe482149e6978a8f1257960eff", "text": "The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first. In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first. Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off. Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life. If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates. Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f31499789d7290c5909610351f06461a", "text": "I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.", "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": "7da7f4bfd86810b55a4c938eb892ef0a", "text": "As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan. If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties. For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties). If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2347a4ed4cd25bf7adcbdf7126f9d7", "text": "The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow. You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage. Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d137f8ba2fc7c051f2118309f7059b59", "text": "There is no such thing as double taxation. If you pay tax in the US, you CAN claim tax credits from India tax authority. For example, if you pay 100 tax in USA and your tax liability in India is 200, then you will only pay 100 (200 India tax liability minus 100 tax credits on foreign tax paid in the USA). This is always true and not depending on any treaty. If there is a treaty, the tax rate in the United States is set on the treaty and you CAN claim that final tax rate based upon that treaty. If you operate an LLC, and the income is NOT derived from United States and you have no ties with the US and that LLC is register to a foreign person (not company but a real human) then you will not have to submit tax return in the US... I advice you to read this: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98277,00.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3902ff75b95b17d3da9bb9b7e00e3bdb", "text": "\"If you have enough earned income to cover this amount you should be all set. If I understand you correctly you proposed two transactions. The first, a withdrawal from the beneficiary IRA. Some of which is an RMD the rest is an extra withdrawal of funds. Next, you propose to make a deposit to a combination of your IRA and your wife's IRA. As long as there's earned income to cover this deposit, your plan is fine. To be clear, you can't \"\"take a bene IRA and deposit the RMD to an IRA.\"\" But, money is fungible, the dollars you deposit aren't traceable, only need to be justified by enough earned income. A bene IRA is a great way to get the money to increase your own IRA or 401(k) deposits. Further details - The 2016 contribution limit is $5,500 per person, so I did make the assumption you knew the $9000 deposit need to be split between the 2 IRAs, with no more than $5500 going into either one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042b242265023ff11bf09c68b010334d", "text": "If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible. For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route. They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home. A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers. This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close). Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home. On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot. This is why you probably need a really good agent. They can frame the contingency in a very positive light.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5118f344d1af3a18c3adfa1c3264fd1f", "text": "If your mortgage is an interest only one then the full amount of the payment you make should be to an expense account perhaps called mortgage interest. If the mortgage is a repayment mortgage you need to split the amount of the payment between such an expense account called mortgage interest and between a liability account which is the amount of the loan. In practice I have not found it very easy to do all this as the actual amounts vary depending on number of days in the month and then there are occasional charges etc made by the mortgage company so some approximations seem to be needed unless one is to spend hours trying to get it exactly correct...... Steve", "title": "" }, { "docid": "252746493a0e4309e5f8a4c89e7e6467", "text": "I'll preface this with saying that I'm not a finance or real estate professional, this is just how I understand the situation and what I'm doing: We just got a 30year/FHA mortgage, there's no prepayment penalty, and no fees associated with paying it biweekly. In fact (Wells Fargo), while the payments get withdrawn biweekly, they don't actually post to the mortgage until there's enough for a full payment. So essentially here are the benefits I'm realizing:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb", "text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "85e79ba38e7a9b761ad1d0665011ddf6", "text": "It has properties of both. Tax authorities will eventually give their opinion on this. Through its properties of finite quantity, fungibility, and resistance to forgery/duplication, it acts as a commodity. It can be sent directly between any two parties anywhere on Earth, without regard for the quantity transacted or physical distance, to act as a currency. By the way, establishing trust in a trust-free environment through cryptographic proof-of-work is a remarkable invention. Sending economic value, cheaply and securely, around the world in minutes, not days/weeks, is a remarkable invention. This is where the value comes from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79add24a8545fda941b3158fea0c6d65", "text": "\"Its neither. Its a scam. there's no value underlying it, and it has proven to be the most speculative and untrustworthy investment there is. The scam works like a pyramid scam, so the more people come later on the more people who came in earlier on gain, so that is why you see so much hype around it encouraged and fueled by those early adopters who'll cash out at your expense. Imagine people who jumped on the bandwagon when each coin was worth a mere fraction of a dollar - they want you to \"\"invest\"\" at the current price of hundreds of dollars per unit so that they could cash out. You'd be better off with tulips, really. (And don't be discouraged by the downvotes on this answer, of course those scamers will try to shut me down. That will just prove the point.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e6d821a8993439b77890a01220e2930", "text": "I would classify Bitcoin as a hybrid. Currency : It is accepted by e-businesses as a form of payment Commodity : Chart illustrating the volatility and speculative nature of Bitcoin", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4f64ef46bb0260c8b78aaf58038bcb06", "text": "Mining is income at the value at time of earning, I would use an index like XBX to determine price. Asset appreciation is capital gains. These aspects of crypto-assets are not a gray area in the US financial sector, and have been addressed for almost half a decade now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b6e0840c6ca3acfeab6d19c999c5c21", "text": "\"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. \"\" Guess I had to come out of the woodwork here. Sounds like you just described bitcoin. :) Plus it is nice because it is much cheaper and easier to digitally transfer than heavy metal. Since bitcoin has a very finite supply, and probably upsets Keynesian economics, I could see an alt-coin that would have an automatic calculation built in to create more money based on inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d1adf0e83406848f9a4b39a7f698c4", "text": "&gt;$1,000 worth of electricity to generate The cost of Bitcoin always tracks the price of Bitcoin. There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin available to be mined every day. The cost to mine bitcoin rises because of competition (they increase the difficulty of the problems to maintain a fixed supply of Bitcoin). The electricity cost to mine Bitcoin is directly related to the amount of miners, which is directly related to the current cost of Bitcoin. More people want to mine when the price is high. If you really think about it, what you are really saying is that the intrinsic value of bitcoin is the value of Bitcoin. Its a completely circular mirage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95849db2b91d8a1f2973c952c3b7651a", "text": "Part of the value of bitcoin is indeed in speculation about its future. Will it be a store of value, like gold is? Will it be *the* medium of exchange for online and offline transactions? Will it be a representation and insurance for services (to be) rendered? It currently most resembles the first, but don't forget that bitcoin is still in its infancy. There's a lot of room for it to grow, and the technology behind it *can* grow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9d15f23da11e1c1e89effd602bfcec", "text": "Can someone please explain how this is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Bitcoin has a $100B market cap. This is a financial instrument with very little real value to either consumers or businesses. However, Bitcoin has experienced a meteoric rise in value as more and more people buy in. Is the bottom not going to fall out here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9320140934a24403d41e217d806ab81a", "text": "I know I'm late to the party, but a couple of rebuttals as a recent bitcoin advocate. I may be out of place in this subreddit as I come from a primarily technological background, not a financial one. &gt; Bittcoin is not a currency, it's a store of value, because it is not widely accepted as tender by most people. Bitcoin is not a currency *yet*, but because it does not have widespread adoption *yet*. Like other revolutionary technologies, there is an [inflection point](https://medium.com/@mcasey0827/speculative-bitcoin-adoption-price-theory-2eed48ecf7da) where adoption goes from hardly anyone to almost everyone very quickly. [Example chart](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*E4eb7wxHinGNdYQq.) &gt;Even as a store of value, it's not very good. It's volatile and the fact that there is a limited supply of bitcoin is not a good thing. Sure, in the short run it results in speculation that drives up the price of a coin and makes it all the rage among gamblers but I don't think anyone can explain how, if used on a larger scale, wouldn't lead to deflation in the price of goods. To me, this is basic supply and demand, and it would in theory become less volatile and more stable following mass adoption. Bitcoin has virtually no inflation, and I agree that this could lead to the deflation of goods, but only insofar as that valuation is determined in bitcoin. For example, milk is still $2, but as the value of bitcoin fluctuates, I may pay .001 BTC or .0005 BTC for that milk. It's important to remember we're dealing with a digital asset in an increasingly more digitized world, a point-of-sale device like we use for credit cards could certainly tackle that conversion in the future. &gt;Also, at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government. How does Bitcoin or any other online currency solve that problem? There's no accountability, and it effectively acts as as an anti-currency, fueled by mistrust in the establishment. This is the best part of bitcoin, understanding the incentives. If you follow that supply and demand logic, then it is in the best interest of *everyone who uses bitcoin* that the bitcoin software and the system itself be reliable and secure. The software is open source so anyone can see how it works and where its flaws and weaknesses are - and it is still standing strong after 8 years. The biggest weakness so far has been in software updates and changes to the core protocol. Without any central structure (i.e. accountability) it can be slow to reach a democratic consensus is such a way that doesn't split the blockchain or fracture the network. This has led to some of the recent extreme volatility. Bitcoin (and some other cryptocurrencies) have tremendous potential to disrupt existing financial institutions. The private blockchains peddled by banks are at this point [just databases](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo&amp;index=2&amp;list=LL7mI3EyFeE83Ac-VtxNUhxA). At some point, these institutions will realize that they can't create their own Facebook, they need to find ways to become part of the new Facebook market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f39d6047af5c4f9ebfafb0c99c198907", "text": "\"Bittcoin is not a currency, it's a store of value, because it is not widely accepted as tender by most people. Even as a store of value, it's not very good. It's volatile and the fact that there is a limited supply of bitcoin is not a good thing. Sure, in the short run it results in speculation that drives up the price of a coin and makes it all the rage among gamblers but I don't think anyone can explain how, if used on a larger scale, wouldn't lead to deflation in the price of goods. Also, at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government. How does Bitcoin or any other online currency solve that problem? There's no accountability, and it effectively acts as as an anti-currency, fueled by mistrust in the establishment. What do you mean, \"\"cryptocurrencies are growing hundreds of times faster than the market as a whole\"\"?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a36dad5328565bc5ddca2e2b3bcdb6", "text": "\"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the \"\"value\"\" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may \"\"double\"\", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost \"\"half\"\" its value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5e06ae5797a21d78982d8329f0a8175", "text": "\"A good reference to what encompasses \"\"securities\"\" are detailed in the Securities Act of 1933, which was enacted by the United States federal government. One main exception, which I would still consider securities for your purposes, would be \"\"commercial paper\"\". These are exempt from the securities act because they mature in 270 days of less, but they function much like bonds or promissory notes Therefore though, it would not encompass currencies and commodities. It really comes down to the structure of the agreement for transferring or holding the particular kind of underlying asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab8e2c4f62e90b429e52348b090e65d3", "text": "\"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as \"\"metal commodity reports\"\" then say as such. Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic \"\"commodity\"\" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0020f28be04149c2e9ad46da4ab8aaa7", "text": "This isn't an article discussing the business aspects of bitcoin. It's a comment on the price movement of bitcoin. Do we regularly comment about the gyrations of commodities and currencies on this thread? I tend to find talk of those things on subs like /r/finance and /r/investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "379efa836cc7a4c7502ea05e87ecfafc", "text": "Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2cac70eed45ceaa9d24925004cef85f", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/strategist-tom-lee-weighs-sees-bitcoin-going-as-high-as-55000.html) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The strategist&amp;#039;s case for bitcoin is a basic supply-and-demand story, similar to the argument other proponents of bitcoin use when playing up its future as &amp;quot;Digital gold.\"\" &gt; While the lack of regulation is what has attracted many buyers, many consider bitcoin the &amp;quot;Wild West.&amp;quot; Three years ago, Mt. Gox, the largest bitcoin exchange then, filed for bankruptcy and said it lost 750,000 of its users bitcoins and 100,000 of the exchange&amp;#039;s own. &gt; Lee acknowledged bitcoin&amp;#039;s volatility in his report, noting that annualized bitcoin volatility is 75 percent, &amp;quot;Substantially higher than gold&amp;#039;s 10%. But as noted, gold&amp;#039;s volatility approached 90% from 1971 to 1980 as the U.S. abandoned the gold standard - hence, we expect this to improve over time.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lved5/first_major_wall_street_strategist_weighs_in_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~161687 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*: **bitcoin**^#1 **Lee**^#2 **currency**^#3 **digital**^#4 **gold**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a6ca6a32a72b6063be3ac0e7c42d47", "text": "\"Alright, so this is all out of the way. As a further note, I have a degree in computer science so I'm not oblivious to the technical aspects of bitcoin. I reject the idea that banning bitcoin is akin to banning the internet - in fact, I reject the notion that bitcoin is anywhere as revolutionary as \"\"the internet\"\" was (which itself, as a construct, is far older than most people let on). I've always acknowledged that there are many innovative technical aspects to bitcoin which are likely to find their way into our current system of money and transactions. The reality, however, goes back to my original contentions - that bitcoin is difficult (if not nearly impossible) to track, and thus serves as a black-market vehicle for those who wish to transact outside the power of the government. Whether or not you see this as \"\"good\"\" or \"\"bad\"\" doesn't matter; \"\"the government\"\" within any defined national border is the plenary power - period - and thus (for lack of a better phrase) \"\"resistance is mostly futile.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98327dbb386c1a738abe97f050ef7ca7", "text": "There are forums online (Wall Street Oasis, Poets and Quants) that cover what you need to know for a Wall Street interview. That's the most efficient way. But it's also important to research the company that you're interviewing for. Do they invest in equity or debt? Are they in a specialized industry (e.g., real estate, oil &amp; gas)? A model for a equity research firm is going to have different priorities from a LBO model for a private equity firm or a cash flow model for a bank/lending company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9afa9a63cbedc37a3769f61c1b6654ad", "text": "\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b8fefc80b1480b222601567516f7e6", "text": "Stock exchanges have been undergoing a period of consolidation for the past hundred years for the exact reasons you mentioned. The existence of digital trading, harmonized laws and regulations, and fewer relevant currencies have made it more practical for mergers and acquisitions between exchanges. Stock exchanges are most often times private companies that compete with other exchanges, so that also promotes the existence of many exchanges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2df1f883c931101ae884951adcb3ebc", "text": "\"Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world? The simple answer is that there is a lot of money to be made by charging fees to facilitate the trading of securities, but there are other factors at play here relating to new technologies. Trading volumes have increased rapidly in recent years. According to this ITG data, in 1997, 6.5 billion shares were traded on US exchanges. By 2015 this number had increased to 40.8 billion shares. There are a number of reasons for this rapid increase in volumes. Most significant would be the introduction of new technologies that allow for high volume, high frequency trading. This increase in activity has be accompanied by an increase in the number of stock exchanges. As CQM points out in his answer, there has been considerable consolidation in the ownership of \"\"legacy\"\" exchanges. For example, the NYSE merged with EuroNext in 2007, and the combined group is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, which also owns numerous smaller stock exchanges as well as a number of derivative/commodities exchanges. However, this consolidation in ownership has been more than matched by the creation of many \"\"virtual\"\" exchanges. In North America these virtual exchanges are called \"\"Alternative Trading Systems\"\". In Europe, they are called \"\"Multilateral Trading Facilities\"\". These new virtual exchanges, sometimes referred to as \"\"dark pools\"\", have begun to significantly eat away at the volumes of the legacy exchanges. If you look at the ITG data (linked above), you will see that the total volume of shares traded on legacy exchanges actually peaked in 2008, and has since then has decreased. This coincides roughly with the appearance of the virtual exchanges and the new high frequency trading methods. According to this paper from the SEC site, dated 2013, Alternative Trading Systems accounted for 11.3% of total volumes in 2012. This will have increased rapidly in the years since 2012. It is this loss of business that has prompted the consolidation in the ownership of the legacy exchanges. These new exchange are \"\"conceptually the same\"\" as the legacy exchanges and must play by the same regulatory rules.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4048f622462175257b20a025cffe2227", "text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b032ce2063c3d7d8952a3ba8ebc1121a", "text": "You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b1c36e5d1791682dd0255c1fe4c7d4", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile.", "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": "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": "81e3c658b4c1ad494a06e67bc0a6de25", "text": "Non-electronic stock exchanges still exist because they used to exist. There are a lot of people in trading firms who grew up with floor trading and don't want to give it up, either because they feel more comfortable with it or because they might lose their job if they went away from it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59f4442413d1763b8006e17302d92bb", "text": "The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"", "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": "f59842b4cc87ff6f7e622e7c1b8a5f5e", "text": "\"Pay to play? You mean they pay for beefier data feeds that other firms don't need, sure they do. But everyone can trade on the US exchanges now (NYSE, NASDAQ, BATS, etc) which was not true 20 years ago when NYSE had the specialist monopoly, so yes the markets are more democratic than they've ever been. Side note, the exchanges do directly profit from increased trading volume because they take a small % of every trade, so I'm not sure what you mean they don't directly profit from it. Also I get the feeling you don't understand the scope of HFT activity, HFT peak profits were on the order of 7 billion during the highest volume time of the last decade (2005-2010). They are now around 1B. Compared to the trillions of dollars that change hands in the exchange per year, this is chump change, hardly a \"\"free money faucet\"\". Also Katsayuma opened yet another dark pool that caters to high volume clients (your goldmans and merrils). The only difference in IEX is it got a free marketing campaign to entice clients. Seriously, IEX is nothing more than the existing fixed cross dark pools, which btw screws over retail investors more than the lit exchanges like NASDAQ. Katsayuma got steamrolled in his executions because he couldn't keep up with the time and then hit the lottery jackpot by getting Michael Lewis to paint him as a \"\"hero\"\", honestly I'm confounded at how lucky that dude got. BTW broker dealers get preferential treatment in IEX, meaning they get to cut in front of the line in front of retail investors. Why are you so opinionated about this, did you make a few bad trades on eTrade and need a scapegoat?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6b17bfa485445555a5611682e477de", "text": "The suffix represents the stock exchange the stock is traded on. N represents the New York Stock Exchange and O represents the Nasdaq. Sometimes a stock can be listed on more than one exchange so the suffix will give you an indication of which exchange the stock is on. For example the Australian company BHP Billiton Ltd is listed on multiple exchanges so is given a different suffix for the different exchanges (especially when the code is the same for each exchange). Below are a few examples of BHP:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2827cf778c230ac62baa016936a44c42", "text": "Serious answer: If 7 banks owned the vast majority of houses for sale -- that is, on their balance sheet, at the peak of the housing bubble -- there would be. These 7 LCD companies produced the majority of LCDs globally. Real estate is far more decentralized, and in many times the bank merely provided financing for a third-party sale (from the builder, from any one of a hundred or so real estate companies, etc). (But I am assuming you probably weren't looking for a factual answer, anyway.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d", "text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22", "text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9775c0ff085d4d7023a275e8706142", "text": "\"A huge amount of money in all financial markets is from institutional investors, such as mutual funds, government pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, etc. For various reasons these funds do all of their trading at the end of the day. They care primarily that their end-of-day balances are in line with their targets and are easy to audit and far less about \"\"timing the market\"\" for the best possible trades. So, if you're looking at a stock that is owned by many institutional investors -- such as a stock (like AAPL) that makes up a significant portion of an index that many funds track -- there will be a huge amount of activity at this time relative to stocks that are less popular among institutions. Even just in its introduction this paper (PDF) gives a fair overview of other reasons why there's a lot of trading at end-of-day in general. (In fact, because of all this closing activity and the reliance on end-of-day prices as signposts for financial calculations, the end-of-day has for decades been the single most fraud-ridden time of the trading day. Electronic trading has done away with a lot of the straight-up thievery that floor traders and brokers used to get away with at the expense of the public, but it still exists. See, for example, any explanation of the term banging the close, or the penalties against 6 banks just last month for manipulating the FX market at the close.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "588c6dd2a52de1016e17691809f23a2c", "text": "\"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies. Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too. It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) \"\"The Economies of Scale.\"\" Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies. Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale. Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler). If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb87c7f991935f3e133dc34eafb8e586", "text": "\"This isn't as rigorous as it should be, but may offer some useful insight into how big and small companies differ operationally. Putting Apple aside, larger companies tend to sell larger volumes of products (even if they're MRI devices, or turbines) relative to what smaller companies can sell (obviously, in absolute terms as well). They are also able to negotiate volume discounts as well as payment terms. This allows them to finance sales through their supply chain. However, their large direct competitors are able to do the same thing as well. Competitive forces then drive prices down. Smaller businesses, without these advantages of scale, tend to have to charge higher margins since they have to pay directly (and, if their clients are large businesses, finance the sale). Small businesses still have higher proportional costs of operation. Sadly, my reference here is a study I performed for the South African Revenue Service about ten years ago, and not available online. However, the time taken by a small business to manage admin, tax, HR is a greater proportion of revenue than for larger companies. If the small business is a start-up with big investment from venture finance, then they could subsidise their selling price, run at a loss and try and gain scale. Funnily enough, there is a fantastic article on this by Joel Spolsky (Ben and Jerry's vs. Amazon) For the average highly-competitive smaller company, the best choice is to chase design/quality/premium markets in order to justify the higher margins they have to charge. And that's what makes Apple interesting as a case study. They were a small company in the presence of giants (Intel, Microsoft, IBM). They were \"\"forced\"\" to concentrate on design and premium markets in order to justify their need for higher margins. It almost didn't work but then they broke through. Now they're in the unique position of having gained scale but are still small enough relative to other electronics manufacturers to continue charging that premium (by volume their sales are still relatively small but their margins make them a giant). This type of variation from market to market makes developing some sort of generalised solution very unlikely but the general requirement holds: that smaller companies must charge higher margins in order to create equivalent profits to larger companies which must gain scale through volume.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dddb677de82e42ec770d23f1c7fe059", "text": "Small companies could have growth prospects. Large companies may not have that many. So look at ROE of companies by quatile to determine which companies have better growth.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8e4671bd2d50e27b9b831bf249dd2bf3", "text": "I agree, I am a small business owner. But my original point is that companies large and small got to pay low rates for almost a decade now. And they profited from it. economics tell you that it will swing back eventually. Conceptually you may have to pay more, you may have to charge more, but your clients are probably making more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bbaaa1f478d2d0a6c1994996a4e34d", "text": "Twitter (and Facebook) are media companies. They make money selling (user generated) content to advertisers. To do this affectively, they need people on the ground in each market who speak the language and know the local customs. If your question is why don't they make larger profits, is this their focus? Growth is THE major factor in stock price for a startup / newly floated company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "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": "4ed57c04ebace079b2c46549a314472d", "text": "There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!", "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": "019c562381dbf07dddf134fca21b2b8a", "text": "To build off of this, they also generally have logistics and distribution in place already. When a smaller company makes a product that people can't get enough of, the small company has problems scaling up fast enough. The big company has scale, the small company has the right product. Put them together, and 1+1=3", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a26a00ac9aeb9b8f04f1f97a152a9542", "text": "Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adc6e15089c8a3f5d3ae3a5805a15a08", "text": "In a well-managed company, employees bring more dollars to their employers than the employers pay the employees (salary and benefits). Employees trade potential reward for security (a regular paycheck). Employers take on the risk of needing to meet payroll and profit from the company's income, minus expenses. The potential rewards are much higher as an employer (self or otherwise), so the ones that do make it do quite well. But this is also consistent with your other statement that the reverse is not true; the risk of self-employment is high, and many self-employed people don't become millionaires.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5adacefbe232ae2fdb5061c62d1ea13b", "text": "This is an interesting discussion. I've never been a part of a large corporation, but aren't these functions good for morale. If they gripe about saving money, and then cut all the employees functions becoming the most uncaring and dispassionate company in all of companydom, wouldn't that also kill productivity?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4", "text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2776ed9cfdd28deaf526993369bf1308", "text": "It depends on which of the big4. Some of them have more revenue and profit from consulting than from audit. Specifically, some of the big4 have failed at growing their consulting business to be competitive with the consulting arms of other firms and/or sold off their consulting groups and are in the process of rebuilding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d367c0b197e4d2b19fdd9f60cb97c426", "text": "Of course you wouldn't, and of course data is incredibly important. What I'm saying is that you at least have access to rudimentary data about what people are interested in, public data sources, etc that didn't even exist in the past. In the past, small businesses were flying incredibly blind. The data small businesses do have access to today didn't even exist except in either very expensive data collection firms or in hard to get physical records in the past. A small company is never going to have the resources of a large one - at any point in history", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec3898a025bd61dafe6b6459d27b46c0", "text": "Of course it's more difficult to grow profits now after they've been having record profits. It's hard to beat the record. Their strategies have been cut salaries in exchange for lowering costs and making higher profits. But when EVERY company cuts salaries, who is left with enough disposable income to buy the products?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fba48783c305d72d6c1464d65e0f9cd2", "text": "And the truth of the matter is that the majority of entrepreneurs are rich only because they are lucky. Strangely none of them are prepared to admit this either. See if you throw enough mud at a wall, eventually some of it will stick. And if 20,000 people start a business, then most will fail, but some will succeed, and some will go through the roof. The business acumen of the directors is sometimes capable of making a business MORE successful than it otherwise would be, but mostly, it's down to luck.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "75a0733bd9cb8aa9b7ca1bc98780f9f2", "text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"", "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": "d0c4460f43692954b0a086c354365cad", "text": "what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c0e0b365c44284f072a16b31557e837f", "text": "I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ced8bdf8dd9ea79f75c2faf73ca36f9", "text": "Happy to help. I always recommend you try and solve these types of problems by hand over financial calculators so that you can get a feel for how terms in the equation relate to one another. That's important while you're studying/learning. But for work--by all means you should use the fastest method, which is probably excel.", "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": "1ebc364846535cd64021290e9b7af494", "text": "You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7973c465d42af9e800720223b3f970c", "text": "Stop with all the stupid big words. You sound really pretentious. Just learn your 3 statements from accounting coach and learn statement analysis from streetofwalls. If you're interested into valuation, streetofwalls is a good primer for DCF/public comps/M&amp;A comps/scenario analysis (LBO), but if you want to literally build out the model, Joshua Rosenbaum's investment banking valuation book is great. Everyone in banking I know used it to learn valuation", "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": "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": "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": "ba7bf795e580e31b8c830138b431da26", "text": "The IRR is the Discount Rate r* that makes Net Present Value NPV(r*)==0. What this boils down to is two ways of making the same kind of profitability calculation. You can choose a project with NPV(10%)>0, or you can choose based on IRR>10%, and the idea is you get to the same set of projects. That's if everything is well behaved mathematically. But that's not the end of this story of finance, math, and alphabet soup. For investments that have multiple positive and negative cash flows, finding that r* becomes solving for the roots of a polynomial in r*, so that there can be multiple roots. Usually people use the lowest positive root but really it only makes sense for projects where NPV(r)>0 for r<r* and NPV(r)<0 for r>r*. To try to help with your understanding, you can evaluate a real estate project with r=10%, find the sum future discounted cash flows, which is the NPV, and do the project if NPV>0. Or, you can take the future cash flows of a project, find the NPV as a function of the rate r, and find r* where NPV(r*)==0. That r* is the IRR. If IRR=r*>10% and the NPV function is well behaved as above, you can also do the project. When we don't have to worry about multiple roots, the preceding two paragraphs will select the same identical sets of projects as meeting the 10% return requirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0f013cb3f6e5e8f6175286a974da69f", "text": "\"By the sounds of things, you're not asking for a single formula but how to do the analysis... And for the record you're focusing on the wrong thing. You should be focusing on how much it costs to own your car during that time period, not your total equity. Formulas: I'm not sure how well you understand the nuts and bolts of the finance behind your question, (you may just be a pro and really want a consolidated equation to do this in one go.) So at the risk of over-specifying, I'll err on the side of starting at the very beginning. Any financial loan analysis is built on 5 items: (1) # of periods, (2) Present Value, (3) Future Value, (4) Payments, and (5) interest rate. These are usually referred to in spreadsheet software as NPER, PV, FV, PMT, and Rate. Each one has its own Excel/google docs function where you can calculate one as a function of the other 4. I'll use those going forward and spare you the 'real math' equations. Layout: If I were trying to solve your problem I would start by setting up the spreadsheet up with column A as \"\"Period\"\". I would put this label in cell A2 and then starting from cell A3 as \"\"0\"\" and going to \"\"N\"\". 5 year loans will give you the highest purchase value w lowest payments, so n=60 months... but you also said 48 months so do whatever you want. Then I would set up two tables side-by-side with 7 columns each. (Yes, seven.) Starting in C2, label the cells/columns as: \"\"Rate\"\", \"\"Car Value\"\", \"\"Loan Balance\"\", \"\"Payment\"\", \"\"Paid to Interest\"\", \"\"Principal\"\", and \"\"Accumulated Equity\"\". Then select and copy cells C2:I2 as the next set of column headers beginning in K2. (I usually skip a column to leave space because I'm OCD like that :) ) Numbers: Now you need to set up your initial set of numbers for each table. We'll do the older car in the left hand table and the newer one on the right. Let's say your rate is 5% APR. Put that in cell C1 (not C3). Then in cell C3 type =C$1/12. Car Value $12,000 in Cell D3. Then type \"\"Down Payment\"\" in cell E1 and put 10% in cell D1. And last, in cell E3 put the formula =D3*(1-D$1). This should leave you with a value for the first month in the Rate, Car Value, and Loan Balance columns. Now select C1:E3 and paste those to the right hand table. The only thing you will need to change is the \"\"Car Value\"\" to $20,000. As a check, you should have .0042 / 12,000 / 10,800 on the left and then .0042 / 20,000 / 18,000 on the right. Formulas again: This is where spreadsheets become amazing. If we set up the right formulas, you can copy and paste them and do this very complicated analysis very quickly. Payment The excel formula for Payment is =PMT(Rate, NPER, PV, FV). FV is usually zero. So in cell F3, type the formula =PMT(C3, 60, E3, 0). Obviously if you're really doing a 48 month (4 year) loan then you'll need to change the 60 to 48. You should be able to copy the result from cell F3 to N3 and the formula will update itself. For the 60 months, I'm showing the 12K car/10.8K loan has a pmt of $203.81. The 20K/18K loan has a pmt of 339.68. Interest The easiest way to calculate the interest is as =E3*C3. That's (Outstanding Loan Balance) x (Periodic Interest Rate). Put this in cell G4, since you don't actually owe any interest at Period 0. Principal If you pay PMT each month and X goes to interest, then the amount to principal is \"\"PMT - X\"\". So in H4 type =-F3 - G3. The 'minus' in front of F3 is because excel's PMT function returns a negative amount. If you want to, feel free to type \"\"=-PMT(...)\"\" for the formula that's actually in F3. It's your call. I get 159 for the amount to principal in period 1. Accumulated Equity As I mentioned in the comment, your \"\"Equity\"\" comes from your initial Loan-to-Value and the accumulated principal payments. So the formula in this cell should reflect that. There are a variety of ways to do this... the easiest is just to compare your car's expected value to your loan balance every time. In cell I3, type =(D3-E3). That's your initial equity in the car before making any payments. Copy that cell and paste it to I4. You'll see it updates to =(D4-E3) automatically. (Right now that is zero... those cells are empty, but we're getting there) The important thing is that as JB King pointed out, your equity is a function of accumulated principal AND equity, which depreciates. This approach handles those both. Finishing up the copy-and-paste formulas I know this is long, but we're almost done. Rate // Period 1 In cell C4 type =C3. Payment // Period 1 In cell F4 type =F3. Loan Balance // Period 1 In cell E4 type =E3-H4. Your loan balance at the end of period is reduced by the principal you paid. I get 10,641. Car Value // Period 1 This will vary depending on how you want to handle depreciation. If you ignore it, you're making a major error and it's not worth doing this entire analysis... just buy the prettiest car and move on with life. But you also don't have to get it scientifically accurate. Go to someplace like edmunds.com and look up a ballpark. I'm using 4% depreciation per year for the old (12K) car and 7% for the newer car. However, I pulled those out of my ass so figure out what's a better ballpark. In G1 type \"\"Depreciation\"\" and then put 4% in H1. In O1 type \"\"Depreciation\"\" and then 7% in P1. Now, in cell D4, put the formula =D3 * (1-(H$1/12)). Paste formulas to flesh out table As a check, your row 4 should read 1 / .0042 / 11,960 / 10,641 / 203.81 / 45 / 159 / 1,319. If so, you're great. Copy cells C4:I4 and paste them into K4:Q4. These will update to be .0042 / 19,883 / 17,735 / 339.68 / 75 / 265 / 2,148. If you've got that, then copy C4:Q4 and paste it to C5:C63. You've built a full amortization table for your two hypothetical loans. Congratulations. Making your decision I'm not going to tell you what to decide, but I'll give you a better idea of what to look at. I would personally make the decision based on total cost to own during that time period, plus a bit of \"\"x-factor\"\" for which car I really liked. Look at Period 24, in columns I and Q. These are your 'equities' in each car. If you built the sheet using my made-up numbers, then you get \"\"Old Car Equity\"\" as 4,276. \"\"New Car Equity\"\" is 6,046. If you're only looking at most equity, you might make a poor financial decision. The real value you should consider is the cost to own the car (not necessarily operate it) during that time... Total Cost = (Ending Equity) - (Payment x 24) - (Upfront Cash). For your 'old' car, that's (4,276) - (203.81 * 24) - (1,200) = -1,815.75 For the 'new' car, that's (6,046) - (339.68 * 24) - (2,000) = -4,106.07. Is one good or bad? Up to you to decide. There are excel formulas like \"\"CUMPRINC\"\" that can consolidate some of the table mechanics, but I assumed that if you're here asking you would have gotten stuck running some of those. Here's the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah0weE0QX65vdHpCNVpwUzlfYjlTY2VrNllXOS1CWUE#gid=1\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c", "text": "E&amp;P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "760403fc809bf4c0a7b1bf52e3218fba", "text": "Does it teach anything else other than the DCF approach? I've already learned that in on of my financing courses. I'm more interested in the more exotic valuation techniques, and how to use and weigh multiple techniques for valuation.", "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": "f04fb092a2a8b06046799dcc5521819c", "text": "\"Both models understand that the value of a company is the sum total of all cashflows in the future, discounted back to the present. They vary in their definition of \"\"cash\"\". The Gordon Growth model uses dividends as a proxy for cashflow, under the assumption that this is the only true cash received by shareholders. (In theory, counting cash is meaningless if there's no eventual end-game where the accumulated cash is divvied up amongst the owners.) The Gordon model is best used to value companies that have an established, reliable dividend. The company should be stable, and the payout ratio high. GG will underestimate the value of firms that consistently maintain a low payout ratio, and instead accumulate cash. There are multiple DCF models. A firm valuation measures all cash available to both equity and debt holders. A traditional equity valuation measures all cash that can be claimed by shareholders. While the latter seems most intuitive and pertinent to a shareholder, the former is very good at showing what a company can do regardless of their choice of capital structure. A small add-on to a firm valuation is the concept of EVA, or economic value add, where the return on capital (all capital -- both debt and equity) is compared to the blended cost of capital. The DCF model is more flexible (optimistic?) than the Gordon in its approach to cash. The approach can be applied to many types of companies, at every stage in their maturity, even if they don't pay a dividend. A simplistic, or single-stage DCF is similar to the Gordon. The assumption is that the company is fully mature, growing at a rate perhaps just slightly above inflation, forever. For younger companies a multi-stage DCF can be employed, where you forecast fairly confident numbers for the next 3-5 years, then 3-5 years beyond that the forecast is less certain, but assumed to be slowing growth, and a generally maturing, stabilizing company. And then the steady-state stage is tacked on to the end. You'll want to check out Professor Aswath Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . He addresses all this and so much more, and has a big pile of spreadsheets freely downloadable to get you started. I also highly recommend his book \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". It's the bible on the topic.\"", "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": "16ad3228aaa40f39a992b2fcb32a4d4f", "text": "\"A simple way to account debt forgiveness of your receivables is to utilize a \"\"Bad Debt\"\" expense account. Take the following two examples: If you are only forgiving a portion of the principle, another popular term used is Principle Reduction as the expense account.\"", "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": "f8d5c327ce6e719e6a82fda9724475de", "text": "While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a83a30574625b35fba23c608b1b6053c", "text": "I concur with the other answers about not mixing family and money: the one whose loans are paid off second will be taking the credit risk of the other not paying/being able to pay. There may also be tax implications. That said, if you do still want to do this, I think there's a fairly straightforward way to account for the payments. With your scenario, your brother should make you a personal loan at some interest rate inbetween 5% and 10%. That loan would be tracked independently of the actual student loans. Any money that your brother transfers to you to pay off your loans, add to that personal loan, and later on once your loans are paid off you start repaying the loan to him and he uses the proceeds for his own loans. The interest rate will determine how the benefit of paying off the 10% loans is shared: if the rate is set at 10% then your brother will get all the benefit, if 5% you will get all the benefit, and 7.5% would roughly share it out. This means that you can still manage your own student loans separately. Your brother can choose how little or much to commit to the snowball rather than his own loans (of course he should first make the minimum payments on his own loans). Anything he does loan you benefits you both if we ignore the credit and tax issues - he gets more than the 5% interest on his own loans, and you pay less than the 10% interest on your loans. You'll need to track the payments each way on this personal loan and apply interest to it every so often, I'd suggest monthly (beware that the monthly equivalent of 5% annual interest is not 5%/12, because of compounding).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8125e139939bdcfbcaeb83f843bb2452", "text": "employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc786f8d44f69979b0e357f265a9b51", "text": "Personal needs? No bank is going to give you that kind of cash without a real reason, usually with some equity backing it. From your post you say you are a student, so I doubt you even have the income to pay it back. If banks just gave out cash like that people would disappear with it all the time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9ea76eef68b7af44e872e2f37d6569", "text": "Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfd9f28b5355e5f533b22d0f211b3e57", "text": "Is it inevitably taxed by the government? Which government? Tax treatment of familial loans varies greatly be jurisdiction. What is proper documentation procedure? If you want to get paid back, definitely a lawyer ... each. Is it better to ask several family members to help contribute so each person loans less? Or is it taxed the same? If this is only a tax issue then see above. If it is a means of spreading risk then sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "839709aa6287a3c0bdadf5e399de228d", "text": "I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37ab19113c26928885755f04ab154a8c", "text": "You will have to write it off as an offset of capital gains or as bad debt against personal income, limited to $3k/ yr. Write off 3k this year, 2k next. Here's the tax code, you'll need to file a form 8949, link below. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc450/tc453 So, this requires that it is a loan, acknowledged by both you and the borrower, with terms of repayment and stated interest, as well as wording for late payments and time for delinquency. The loan document doesn't have to be fancy, but it must show a reasonable intention of repayment to distinguish it from a gift. Then send out a 1099c for cancellation of debt. This is a starting point, it's a good idea to run everything by your tax processional to make sure you're meeting the requirements for bad debt with your contact and payment communication.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0", "text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11c9b3d0363b550de540aa34f698e3b1", "text": "You haven't mentioned the country. As a general premise, you own them money and the fact that the account was closed has no bearing on the fact that you own them money. My suggestion would be pay them off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a44496c2bd1e2232797a0e4fd167338", "text": "\"Definitely consult a lawyer. Mortgages are highly regulated now, and regardless of how familiar borrower & lender are, the standard contract will be extremely long. (at least in the US) There are no \"\"friends and/or family\"\" exceptions. If the contract does not conform to regulations, it may be invalid, and all the money you lent could simply evaporate since it was the borrower who actually bought the house, and it's the loan contract that's rendered null & void; in that case, it may be better to simply donate the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"", "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": "a5a8f00d13d6121c63e2703247e507dc", "text": "\"Bookkeeping and double-entry accounting is really designed for tracking the finances of a single entity. It sounds like you're trying to use it to keep multiple entities' information, which may somewhat work but isn't really going to be the easiest to understand. Here's a few approaches: In this approach, the books are entirely from your perspective. So, if you're holding onto money that \"\"really\"\" belongs to your kids, then what you've done is you're taking a loan from them. This means that you should record it as a liability on your books. If you received $300, of which $100 was actually yours, $100 belongs to Kid #1 (and thus is a loan from him), and $100 belongs to Kid #2 (and thus is a loan from her), you'd record it just that way. Note that you only received $100 of income, since that's the only money that's \"\"yours\"\", and the other $200 you're only holding on behalf of your kids. When you give the money to your kids or spend it on their behalf, then you debit the liability accordingly and credit the Petty Cash or other account you spent it from. If you wanted to do this in excruciating detail, then your kids could each have their own set of books, in which they would see a transfer from their own Income:Garage Sale account into their Assets:Held by Parents account. For this, you just apportion each of your asset accounts into subaccounts tracking how much money each of you has in it. This lets you treat the whole family as one single entity, sharing in the income, expenses, etc. It lets you see the whole pool of money as being the family's, but also lets you track internally some value of assets for each person. Whenever you spend money you need to record which subaccount it came from, and it could be more challenging if you actually need to record income or expenses separately per person (for some sort of tax reasons, say) unless you also break up each Income and Expense account per person as well. (In which case, it may be easier just to have each person keep their entirely separate set of books.) I don't see a whole lot of advantages, but I'll mention it because you suggested using equity accounts. Equity is designed for tracking how much \"\"capital\"\" each \"\"investor\"\" contributes to the entity, and for tracking a household it can be hard for that to make a lot of sense, though I suppose it can be done. From a math perspective, Equity is treated exactly like Liabilities in the accounting equation, so you could end up using it a lot like in my Approach #1, where Equity represents how much you owe each of the kids. But in that case, I'd find it simpler to just go ahead and treat them as Liabilities. But if it makes you feel better to just use the word Equity rather than Liability, to represent that the kids are \"\"investing\"\" in the household or the like, go right ahead. If you're going to look at the books from your perspective and the kids as investing in it, the transaction would look like this: And it's really all handled in the same way an Approach #1. If on the other hand, you really want the books to represent \"\"the family\"\", then you'd need to have the family's books really look more like a partnership. This is getting a bit out of my league, but I'd imagine it'd be something like this: That is to say, the family make the sale, and has the money, and the \"\"shareholders\"\" could see it as such, but don't have any obvious direct claim to the money since there hasn't been a distribution to them yet. Any assets would just be assumed to be split three ways, if it's an equal partnership. Then, when being spent, the entity would have an Expense transaction of \"\"Dividend\"\" or the like, where it distributes the money to the shareholders so that they could do something with it. Alternatively, you'd just have the capital be contributed, And then any \"\"income\"\" would have to be handled on the individual books of the \"\"investors\"\" involved, as it would represent that they make the money, and then contributed it to the \"\"family books\"\". This approach seems much more complicated than I'd want to do myself, though.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c3ee2200952b082f62092d65b776999e", "text": "It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5da547d40bc58ce938dde6001001f3f8", "text": "Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other. For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time. Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets. You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost. Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things). Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production. Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "460d85a7c8ff70a578985dbad0479ede", "text": "A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations. This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse. A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ec7ef0fd83a1c0b24e84f61e5576178f", "text": "I don't understand your question. What the article is talking about is a bit more than circulating money indiscriminately. It is saying that by circulating more of it to rich and less to the poor will result in less growth overall, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae970d86fb613a52eccde066988c16a8", "text": "that was not the argument posited, and it would be superfluous if it were. it does nothing to challenge hanauers argument, as hanauer acknowledges this tenet which further informs his broader view that this phenomenon results in the absence of economic growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17361070131059b6ba867cba09f1d51b", "text": "The President, Democrat or Republican, has very little effect on the growth or performance of an economy. The Federal Reserve has the largest impact, followed by Congress. Interestingly, if US government spending was not frozen in 2010, the US would have grown closer to the historical average of 3%. Government spending, which is controlled by Congress, brought down GDP growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "612503d4c8d6c15915c1625fbdbd65ce", "text": "OMG. A recession is coming. Wait...hasn't that been a true statement since forever? No shit a recession is coming. That's like saying a thunderstorm is coming. This is a natural part of economics. Recessions are a necessary part of growth, almost like growing pains. Now the real question is 'when will the recession happen.' However nobody truly knows that, so it's better to spend your efforts making sure you're prepared for when a recession occurs as opposed to worrying about when that will happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e0a3ac799b763902f5b4ec1ae24189f", "text": "we have massive numbers of people out of work and our infrastructure is crumbling. We put people to work just like we did in the 30's; our infrastructure gets fixed and so does our economy. I totally agree that for an economy to grow we have to make more stuff. We're not making the stuff now because people cannot afford to purchase it. If given funds, people would purchase stuff, and stuff would get made. This got us out of them great depression and has kept Scandinavia strong, and even got Iceland out of it's terrible brush with Libertarianism. Brazil is becoming a first world powerhouse by this sort of redistribution. Redistributing money down the ladder has the benefit of working. Austerity leads to Greece. And Spain. And Portugal. And Ireland. But not Germany, because they deficit-spent their way out of their recession.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "801125f5adf1109ba87736274e2082da", "text": "\"Wealth is not distributed equally in any economy. And, even if it were, differentiation between people would lead to different interests being expressed in different ways. As people either attempt to earn more (to improve their situation) or different people express those interests in different ways (saving money to go on a skiing holiday, or to put a downpayment on a house) people invite new products and services to be created to satisfy those demands. In addition, there is the problem of uncertainty. People save money today to cope with uncertainty tomorrow (healthcare, pensions, education, etc.). Those savings don't remain idle, but are lent to others who believe that they can make a return through investing in new businesses or ideas. The point being that any dynamic economy will experience change in the amount of goods available to the people within that economy. From an economic perspective \"\"growth\"\" is just another permutation. From a political perspective, \"\"growth\"\" implies that people are getting wealthier. If that growth is asymmetrically distributed (e.g. the poor don't experience it and the middle classes don't feel they get enough of it) then that is a problem for politicians. The emerging markets of the world are trying to raise millions of people out of poverty. Growth is a way of measuring how quickly they are achieving that end. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless. There are some people who believe that \"\"we\"\" (as some proxy of society) have enough stuff and growth is unnecessary but that implies that everyone is satisfied. For as long as some people wish to have more wealth/stuff, and have the means to achieve this, there will be growth. And for as long as there is uncertainty growth will vary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc669c07c7a6d3fd0cfcb328b92be3ba", "text": "\"I'm not defending Faber, but from an statistical point your logic is terrible. It's a lot easier to go from 2 to 4 than it is from 200 to 400 - so any undeveloped third-world country should be growing a **lot** faster than places with existing stable economies. And to put \"\"fastest growing\"\" into context, it's 8.5%, which isn't even as big as I was expecting considering the US is growing at 3% and has a much larger base value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15e4181d6f3346f1a74af9ceb01fd59", "text": "No, it doesn't. That would be true if somehow incomes were conserved, but they aren't. What's much more likely is that income growth becomes muted in the first world with the vast majority of income growth happening in developing economies. So, it doesn't require losing income, but it will mean constrained income growth in developed countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eea1266177b47feac63c58f7fe87a70", "text": "Today’s up and coming tech companies are taking value from the existing companies so I believe there can be a net loss. Also, efficiency gains are going to a smaller portion of the population, and if they don’t increase their spending to make up for the decrease in the spending of those who are falling behind, then that might cause a decrease in economic activity. Of course, there are a lot more up and coming people in the word too, so they could very well outnumber those in the US/Western Europe regions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c453261c2cf0ac5964870d3679062958", "text": "Some innovations increase productivity quite a bit. So in the long run, innovations is a main driver or economical growth. And innovation is fueled by, indeed, debt. The straight curve in the video, the economical growth, should not be a straight line, but a upwardly curved one. It cannot go down because innovations in productivity are not lost (I challenge you for an example contradicting this. Normally, every upward cycle should create an extra increase in productivity. The government also plays a role in stimulating innovation. I loved this video btw.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc8f5acc6acb7c172f0f6631a96b3aa", "text": "You do know that since the shale gas boom started the cost of energy declined significantly, don't you? Your theory is a bit simplistic and had more than a few holes. GDP growth is not that contingent on energy prices. How do you factor in increasing fuel efficiency in your theory?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55f5cae08ad8656a8f742e86aee56cf7", "text": "While there could be other factors, the chart at the top made me not want to read the article... it's a gain of less than 0.1% in a year in a growing economy. Keep this up and they'll be screwed by 2040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "362077d02a7056589fbe1c25e18915f3", "text": "\"Check out Irwin Schiff's \"\"How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't\"\". It explains how economy's work using a comic format, explaining investment, savings, banking, gov't, taxation,etc, although you may need to be at least 10 to understand some of the concepts. :)\"", "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": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8733d681a4084e4ea7750776f7b865", "text": "you dont need any permits or be inside the US to trade the exact same securities on US exchanges. you can literally move your bitcoin from a chinese exchange to us exchange in seconds. i don't see how you can possibly run into legal issues if anyone from outside the country can trade bitcoins on an exchange inside the country without any permit. a lot of these exchanges dont ask for ID or social security number anyways. none of it is government regulated. also trading anything is never a passive income. theres no such thing as an easy or obvious investment. there are always risks- and the actual risk is often deceivingly low", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2343c02755c49de7b8008466b7274762", "text": "You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6", "text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2068ef56056bfdd3913276260dcb0db7", "text": "As far as I know, with ADRs you're essentially trading by proxy -- a depository bank is holding the actual stock certificate, and must provide you with the actual stock on demand. The one thing that is different is that in the event that the ADR is terminated (which sometimes happens with mergers), you have a limited period of time to sell the shares -- otherwise, you get the actual foreign stock that you may or may not be able to trade without transferring to a different broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e71aab4db2eebd2a6cc2e519ded63c7", "text": "\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a4108de7a8c8f8819cef2931d529cda", "text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a1eeb8bc084a1d378814a548ab4109a", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27fcc343ed9d01eac9eb28343ef02044", "text": "\"The IRS W-8BEN form (PDF link), titled \"\"Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding\"\", certifies that you are not an American for tax purposes, so they won't withhold tax on your U.S. income. You're also to use W-8BEN to identify your country of residence and corresponding tax identification number for tax treaty purposes. For instance, if you live in the U.K., which has a tax treaty with the U.S., your W-8BEN would indicate to the U.S. that you are not an American, and that your U.S. income is to be taxed by the U.K. instead of tax withheld in the U.S. I've filled in that form a couple of times when opening stock trading accounts here in Canada. It was requested by the broker because in all likelihood I'd end up purchasing U.S.-listed stocks that would pay dividends. The W-8BEN is needed in order to reduce the U.S. withholding taxes on those dividends. So I would say that the ad revenue provider is requesting you file one so they don't need to withhold full U.S. taxes on your ad revenue. Detailed instructions on the W-8BEN form are also available from the IRS: Instruction W-8BEN (PDF link). On the subject of ad revenue, Google also has some information about W8-BEN: Why can't I submit a W8-BEN form as an individual?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71", "text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b7c93adacde6bc4f0f5a51f59f48c9", "text": "All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a", "text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.", "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": "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": "7fd6d379a23acdd8369d63e87fb51d0e", "text": "You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08", "text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c2ef4b2ccfc7d4cf242313750d63b89c", "text": "I learned most of this stuff from 3 textbooks in school probably totaling $900 between the 3. I imagine you don't want to spend the cash on that. I would suggest finding a source online. A lot of the surface level stuff you are looking for can be found online on websites like Investopedia. They are a great resource and are free usually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a", "text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1186534fe3cabcce55f68329a7b594c2", "text": "I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8369588b9b80b75f59f546e868ce3c", "text": "Don't be ridiculous. You are competing with the best graduates out of the harvards in the world and you think reading a couple self help financial books will put you on level playing field? Don't waste your time with bcg or McKinsey.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a930633f9779b2b637ac4e96d4b0fa93", "text": "\"What part of finance does he want to get into? Investments, Equities and trading, derivatives, finance as a whole, corporate finance? Most academic textbooks are ridiculously priced so if he is looking to learn technical skills he might have to look at splashing out or looking elsewhere... Fundamentals of Corporate Finance 7th is a good one. Covers a lot of the core parts of finance which then extend to all the other areas of finance, starting at the basics of Time Value of Money (though it does gloss over some of the more complex parts). However, it is pretty expensive. This is an academic textbook. On the non-technical side, there are a number of books with which he could get started. Benjamin Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a popular and affordable one, but it won't teach much about the technical side of finance.\"", "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": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7739215dc5ad176dd502605902b72e7a", "text": "As a follow-up, I ended up buying: * Financial Modeling and Valuation: A Practical Guide to Investment Banking and Private Equity (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestitures, and Other Restructurings, + Website (Pignataro, Paul; Hardcover) * The Essential CFO: A Corporate Finance Playbook (Nolop, Bruce P.; Paperback)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "707b61081a6c7cf8ec495fe81bd48389", "text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d022fd1fffce9b8a0474924205f9a7", "text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "808551695901e548c97822ec9534711a", "text": "\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ac2024a51ee08822de105835d47809c", "text": "\"For learning about finances my main two financial resources are this site, and the Motley Fool. My secondary sources are keeping up with columns by my favourite economic journalists - in the press in the US, Australia, England, and India. Regarding your comment about feeling green on the basics despite the reading - you're not alone. I've been interested in financials for better than 10 years, but there are a lot of questions on this site where I say to myself, \"\"I've no idea of what the answer could be, what are our resident experts saying?\"\" Having said that, there are some topics where I feel as though I can weigh in - and they tend to be where I have a little book knowledge and a lot of personal experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77c8e1d09e612404240faca6cb5bba6e", "text": "In the intro to the Big Short, the author talks about how he wrote liars poter to steer people away from wall street, but in the end it became a manual for how to work there. I am not trying to steer you away, or towards anything except the facts. If you want to do well in something, the best idea is to understand it; warts and all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4d2782016a99449f0364ecead401b2", "text": "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/most-important-finance-books-2017-1 Bloomberg, finacial times, chat with traders, calculated risk, reuters, wsj, cnbc(sucks), bnn (if canadian) Audio books on youtube helped me read a lot of finance books in a short amount of time, listen while working out. One thing that helped me stand out at my student terms (4th year here) was learning outside of the classroom and joining an investment club. Learning programming can help if thats a strength, but its really not needed and it can waste time if yoi wont reach a point to build tools. Other than that at 18 you have more direction than i did, good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e0cc6474e82e1d2d036cd295fc54b37", "text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation.   Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets]   This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try.   [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...]   It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"", "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": "d0a9a32beb28f2649cd2fb43acf5ee56", "text": "I see a false assumption that you are making. (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares. The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO. Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "af4679f4a8afd4be7e354e3d1b5d4410", "text": "Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc. Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95016e01b71321938f2cd9859aed3f34", "text": "If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972477431e58893d9d8e5cb7f9dea618", "text": "\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "170633134dd6ddb1de23ee94c3c3f679", "text": "Best as i can tell, the simple answer is: the smartest approach to investing for dividends is to pick a company that is, has, and will continue to make a solid profits. there are lots of them out there. specifically, companies with no debt, a history of long-term and steady growth and a stable market share will, almost always recoup any drop in stock valuation due to a dividend payout...and usually in short order. this is why dividends were created...as a mechanism for distributing profits back to investor without diminishing thier stake in the company. the trick then, is to find such companies with the best ratio between stock price and dividend payout. and again, there are a lot of good options out there. All the trepidation is justified however, as many unscrupulous companies will try to pull investors in with high dividends as a means to simply generate capital. these companies have few of the quality attributes mentioned above. instead, High debt, fluctuating or negative profits, minimal market share or diminishing growth present a very risky long term play and will be avoided by this conservative investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b197fde811ce81c3d417db1ae47b52d", "text": "Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "412af011c70132f78f47a1037f0fc2cd", "text": "Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac97477afe8baf421d2bcf1b23bf05dd", "text": "You have a misunderstanding about what it is. Absent differential tax treatment buybacks and dividens are the exact same. period. You're saying it yourself, not buying back stock so they can pay out dividends. What the impetus might be is irrelevant. Dividends are a use of funds competing equally with investments or higher salary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c022b1449e01b86edb8c305f5f463c", "text": "\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a855468c03562cdb97effe4bd913e03d", "text": "Are we still discussing Amazon? Their net income has hovered around $1 billion per year for the past three years. If that's profit-free, sign me up. They do have very thin margins, but it's clearly by design. And you really do have to take into account the massive volume of sales they do. Still, like you, I'm curious to see if they'll ever turn into a mature, dividend-paying company. For example, it's been interesting to see Microsoft hike their dividend to a fairly competitive level while Yahoo resists being seen as anything other than a growth story.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd14724d83214a490d517282be12cd3", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a732d29b5bdf5178f0c483a2cbbe10aa", "text": "Gotcha. So they essentially are just your normal dude that puts money in the stock market, just bigger money. For example, I may buy a few stocks in Apple in the hopes that I can exit at a higher price and have higher dividends. Those big investors are doing the same thing for the 2 benefits I said earlier, but they have more money to invest. Or do they get other benefits that us average stock holders dont get? Thanks for the first reply.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e5c6267801e51aa7a34b7956252680d5", "text": "They've pretty much shot any credibility they possessed. Follow the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6acbb37e49c0f1cbf78c1923d813df7", "text": "\"The problems with ratings and the interpretation of ratings is that they are retrospective, and most people read them as prospective. They basically tell you that debtor is solvent right now. What does that mean? It means that the ratings are based on the audited financial statements of a company, government or other organization issuing debt. So, in the best case scenario where the rating agency is acting properly, they are still dependent on folks with fiduciary responsibility telling the truth. And even if they are telling the \"\"truth\"\", accounting rules make it possible to obscure problems for years in some cases. Municipal goverments are a great example of this... the general obligation bonds cities and even states with deep structural budget problems still get good ratings, because they are solvent and have sufficient operating cash to meet obligations today. But towards the end of a 30-year bond's life, that may not be the case anymore unless they dramatically alter their budgets. At the end of the day, ratings are one aspect of due diligence. They are useful screening devices, but you need to understand who you are lending money to by purchasing bonds and diversify your holdings to protect your wealth. The problem, of course, is when the trustees of your pension fund invests in garbage assets after getting a sales pitch on the beach in Hawaii, then conveniently place all of the blame for that bad investment on the rating agency. You unfortunately have zero control over that.\"", "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": "21bf027dd7d50ab43d1fea90f8798f18", "text": "\"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, respectively. Ratings agencies are NOT paid by the investment banks, they are paid by the corporations or city/ state that is issuing debt. The investment banks are the syndicate that pulls the transaction together and brings it to market. For mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt CDO-CLO's, all of which are fancy structured securitizations, well, that is a different matter! Those transactions are the ones where there is an inappropriately close tie between the investment bankers and ratings agencies. And those were the ratings that blew out and caused problems. Ratings agencies continued to do a decent job with what WAS their traditional business, corporate and municipal bond ratings, as far as I know. What khajja said was 100% correct: S&amp;P's fees were paid by investors, the people who were purchasing the bonds, until about 50 years ago. Around the same time that McGraw-Hill purchased S&amp;P, in 1966, they departed from that model, and started charging the bond issuers for ratings. I don't know if that decision was driven by McGraw-Hill or not, though. One more thing: Not all credit ratings agencies are paid by the issuers. One of the 10 NRSRO's (a designation given by the S.E.C.) is Egan-Jones. Their revenue comes from the investors, bond purchasers, not the companies issuing bonds, unlike the S&amp;P/ Fitch/ Moody's \"\"business model\"\". So there is an alternative, which I consider hopeful and reason not to totally despair. EDIT: What xcrunna19 mentions is also totally accurate. The part about Nouriel Roubini (who is a professor at N.Y.U. or Columbia or such and a sensible though slightly high strung sort) is consistent with my impression. As for whether it would require government action to implement the changes advocated by Roubini, yes, I guess it would, but I don't know if the government would do that. It would be better if the credit ratings agencies would find their own way to a different, less conflicted payment-incentive model. Keep in mind too that many of the provisions of Dodd-Frank have removed the existing regulatory requirements for credit ratings on bonds and other securities. This is the scary part though: There isn't anything to replace the credit ratings agencies, not at the moment, as far as I can tell! Eventually the government is supposed to come up with an alternative, but that hasn't happened yet. Which is better: Not requiring ratings at all, or the past situation of sometimes inflated ratings, which imparted a false sense of confidence? I don't know.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b686ae0fe2a548a07dce6642d2d9bc0c", "text": "Yes, the entire financial system is based on trust. As we have seen repeatedly, even the ratings agencies can be wrong and in collusion. You need to understand what products have any insurance/contingency/recourse if things don't go as planned. A lot of people were surprised when they found out SIPC didn't ensure futures when MF Global declared bankruptcy last fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a29d85cfd8c938ef2276ef2eebe0ed11", "text": "The one financial reform we should have passed is to stop the conflict of interest rating agencies have: They get paid by the very companies they are supposed to rate! All it takes is a company to slip a little more in to get that higher rating. I've heard this is also how the BBB operates too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68f526be13311ca8c94737394ef90a28", "text": "Some banks are bankrupt, or so close to it that they can only pretend to give real dividends in a desperate attempt to keep investors from fleeing and driving their stock price (and thus credit rating) down into a pit of despair. Other banks (like jpmc) are not in bad shape, have cash, and are quite happy to disburse it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f", "text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6828cfcacc79e64d02085f60c4e19b8", "text": "Just playing devil's advocate: A falling stock price impairs the firm's ability to raise equity capital efficiently. In these times, additional regulatory capital requirements continue to be levied on the banks, and they are faced with raising capital inefficiently, which may impair their ability to pay their debt, which may lead to a ratings downgrade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a6c705c7d87a9ec21079f6c6c637160", "text": "This is not shocking news actually. Nothing happened to these banks that made them lose their ratings. Rather, it's the rating agencies that have set up more strict rules, especially when it comes to triple A status. Specifically, it's no longer possible that banks or similar institutions can have a triple A status.This effectively means that only the richer countries can be triple A.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ff04908735ba5c39fd86ede69c1d9ef", "text": "i forget which one, but one of the two majors (S&amp;P, Moodys), for a time, was not paid by issuers, but solely by subscribers. no surprise here, but at that time the issuer had, on average, lower ratings than the other service. after the service switched to subscriber-paid, within a year its ratings were on par with the other service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "635ce7920fdb62bbb83e572f92765298", "text": "Yeah it was a mix between the issuing agencies and the credit agencies. If the credit agencies didnt rate them as AAA then the financial institutions would just go to the other agency. So there was a conflict of interest in rating them higher. There was mismanagement on both sides of the fence and when the CDOs started to default it created a forced selling environment where people HAD to sell their CDOs/stocks at a steep discount to get enough liquidity to pay their own mortgages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f780ede624cc558237341e4335e2dd31", "text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb", "text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1", "text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc8c9f027bfc2cc21bc6b1d146bfccf", "text": "Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80cf25b1ba15930ca2b8aa57dbb8796c", "text": "Your credit score is based on your use of Debt. From wikipedia: Opening and closing bank accounts, buying or selling cars without debt, or even buying or selling houses without debt won't affect your credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382fded1ed4fb017436f171d9cfcd887", "text": "So their programmers don't have to deal with floating point arithmetic. This is why they're so far ahead in technology!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a539363d63bb5e87844af2f86642e935", "text": "\"For some people, it's easier to stick to a budget if they have separate checking and savings accounts because they can deposit funds directly into their savings account and not have those funds accessible by debit/credit card, checks, etc. This allows people to pay themselves first and accumulate savings, while making it slightly more difficult to spend those savings on a whim. One a more technical/legal note, one key difference in the United States comes from Regulation D. §204.2(d)(2) of the law limits you to six withdrawals from savings and money market accounts. No such limit exists for checking accounts. Regulation D also forbids banks from paying interest on business checking accounts. In the simplest case, checking accounts and savings accounts are a tradeoff between liquidity and return. Checking accounts are much more liquid, but won't necessarily earn interest, while savings accounts are less liquid because of the withdrawal limits, but earn interest. Nowadays, however, sweep accounts blur this line somewhat because they function like checking accounts, in that you can write an unlimited number of checks, make an unlimited number of withdrawals, etc. but you can also earn interest on your account balance because some or all of the funds are \"\"swept\"\" into an investment account when not in use. The definition of \"\"in use\"\" can vary from business to business and bank to bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2141f8cd0a89ca1e520fc0df552b41af", "text": "A checking account is instant access. It can be tapped via check or debit card. A savings account is supposed to be used to accumulate cash for a goal that is is longer term or for an emergency. Many people need to separate these funds into different accounts to be able to know if they are overspending or falling short on their savings. In the United States the Federal Reserve also looks at these accounts differently. Money in a checking account generally can't be used to fund loans, money in a savings account can be used as a source of loans by the bank. An even greater percentage of funds in longer term accounts can be used to fund loans. This includes Certificates of Deposit, and retirement accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0233932bf2985e1e93b85ca2cdd8221", "text": "If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d7742a2b993821a7cebeef9029d984", "text": "Additionally, it used to be the case that savings accounts would have a noticeably higher interest than checking accounts (if the checking account paid any at all). So you would attempt to maximize your cash working for you by putting as much as you could into the savings account and then only transferring out what you needed to cover bills, etc into the checking account.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d5e4e1d4f9c4dd063b662a9cce9501c", "text": "\"If you ask ten different couples what they do, depending on a variety of factors, you'll get anywhere between two and ten different answers. One personal finance blogger that I read swears by the fact that he and his wife keep their finances totally separate. His wife has her own retirement account, he has his. His wife has her own checking and savings, he has his. They pay fifty-fifty for expenses and each buy their own \"\"toys\"\" from their own accounts. He views this as valuable for allowing them to have their own personal finance styles, as his wife is a very conservative investor and he is more generous. My spouse and I have mostly combined finances, and view all of our money as joint (even though there are a smattering of accounts between us with just one name on them as holdovers from before we were married). Almost all of our purchasing decisions except regular groceries are joint. I couldn't imagine it any other way. It leaves us both comfortable with our financial situation and forces us to be on the same page with regards to our lifestyle decisions. There's also the ideological view that since we believe marriage united us, we try to live that out. That's just us, though. We don't want to force it on others. Some couples find a balance between joint accounts and his and her fun money stashes. You might find yet another arrangement that works for you, such as the one you already described. What's going to be important is that you realize that all couples have the same six basic arguments, finances being one of them. The trick is in how you disagree. If you can respectfully and thoughtfully discuss your finances together to find the way that has the least friction for you, you're doing well. Some amount of friction is not just normal, it's almost guaranteed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25d8a6bc03bcee11387a8f0d2e9c1679", "text": "\"As others have said, the decision is a very personal one. Personally, I think you have a good idea. For those of us that thrive in structured systems having a detailed breakdown and distribution of assets is a great idea. I recommend going one step further however. Instead of having a single \"\"Necessities\"\" account have a division here. 1 account for \"\"Bills\"\" and another for \"\"Living Expenses.\"\" Your Bills account should recieve the funds to pay your monthly expenses such as Rent, Utilities, Insurance. Living Expenses is for day to day spending. I recommend this because your Bills are generally a fairly fixed expense. Keeping your flexible spending separate allows you to manage it more carefully and helps prevent overspending. I keep my Living Expenses in cash and divide it up by the number of days before my next check. Every day I put my portion of the Living Expenses in my wallet. This way I know that I can spend as much money in my wallet and still be fine for the rest of the pay period. I also know that if I want to go out to a nice dinner on Friday, it would be helpful if I have money left over at the end of the day Monday through Thursday.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "834161fd81c5a093c0ceb941342f316b", "text": "\"Current is another word for Checking, as it is called in the US. Savings account is an interest-bearing account with certain limitations. For example, in the US you cannot withdraw money from it more than 6 times a month. Here is the explanation why. Current account is a \"\"general-use\"\" account on which you can write checks, use ATM/Debit cards and have unlimited transactions. It can also have negative balance (if your bank agrees to let you overdraft, they usually charge huge fees for that though). Checking accounts can have interest as well, but they usually don't, and if they do - it's much lower than the savings account interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70ea11dccd38402e5345271ba4ee0a4b", "text": "\"This seems like a risky setup. All it takes is one missed or delayed transfer for you to overdraw your \"\"savings\"\". There is a benefit to keeping your regular expenses and savings separate, and I can see some benefits in having multiple checking accounts depending on how you organize your finances, but I don't see a benefit to having a paycheck go to one account and all regular spending (and \"\"savings\"\") come from another. It requires some regular maintenance to transfer money over to use for regular spending. I suppose if you have a checking account that earns interest, but requires direct deposits, and a savings account that earns slightly higher interest you could squeeze out a bit, but it's probably not worth the effort these days unless you have a LOT of money going in and out. Also, it should not be easy to tap into savings, but your day-to-day spending should be very accessible. All those factors suggest (to me) that your paycheck should go into your regular spending account, and keep your savings separate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c599ab7cdddfa97073e35b163dcfd664", "text": "My wife and I chose to share all bank accounts and credit cards. We did so because we realized that, over the course of a marriage, the pendulum of who is the primary breadwinner may shift repeatedly. Having one account gets us in the habit of thinking about our needs and wants together and eases any transitions that may come as one or the other of us quits a job/returns to school/reduces hours. I should also say that this system would likely not work well if either partner has semi-compulsive spending/consumption habits. I'd recommend separate bank accounts with a joint account for your mortgage in that situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "803d7c76518537f98cceee4def5f663f", "text": "Yes a minor can have a checking account, or a savings account. They can even get a debit card. The money in that bank account belongs to the minor. The account can be established as soon as the are assigned their social security number. If they are a newborn the account is generally set up as a joint account with a parent to facilitate transferring money into the account. For us the money was birthday gifts from relatives. The IRS allows minors to receive small amounts of interest, or other unearned income, tax free. In 2015 that is up to $1,050, if they have no earned income. When bank rates were higher some parent's wanted to put all their saving under their child's name, of course in the eyes of the law the money belonged to the child and was only to be spent for items that benefited the child. Credit cards are another matter because the CARD act in 2009 required lenders to only give credit to those under 21 who had proof of sufficient income, unless there was a co-signer. You do have to be careful when talking about owning a house as minor. They generally can't sign a contract. You could gift the house to the minor, but if it was time to sell it the courts would insist on appointing a legal guardian to represent the interest of the child. That could add significant time to the transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecad338e1109d173bd965ba1f489795", "text": "\"What I've found works best when working on my personal budget is to track my income and spending two different ways: bank accounts and budget categories. Here is what I mean: When I deposit my paycheck, I do two things with it: It goes into my checking account, so the balance of my checking account goes up by the amount of my paycheck. I also \"\"deposit\"\" the money from my checking account into my various budget category balances. This is separate from my bank account balances. Some of my paycheck money goes into my groceries category, some goes into clothing, some into car fuel, entertainment, mortgage, phone, etc. Some goes into longer range bills that only happen once or twice a year, such as car insurance, life insurance, property tax, etc. Some goes into savings goals of ours, such as car replacement, vacation, furniture, etc. Every dollar that we have in a bank account or in cash in our wallets is also accounted for in a budget category. If you add up the balances of our bank accounts and cash, and you add up the balances of our budget categories, they add up to the same number. When we make a purchase, this also gets accounted for twice: The appropriate bank account (or cash wallet) balance gets reduced by the purchase amount. The appropriate budget category gets reduced by the purchase amount. In this way, we don't really need to worry about having separate bank accounts for different purposes. We don't need to put our savings goal money in a separate bank account from our grocery money, if we don't want to. The budget category accounting keeps track of how much money is allocated to each purpose. Now, the budget category amounts are not spent yet; the money in them is still in our bank account, and we can move money around in the categories, if we change our mind on how to allocate them. For example, if we don't spend all of our gas money for the month, we can either keep that money in the gas category, or we can move it to a different category, such as the car replacement category or the vacation category. If the phone bill is more than we expect, we can move money around from a different category to cover it. Now, back to your question: We allocate some money from each paycheck into our furniture category. But the money is not really spent until we actually buy some furniture. When we do, the furniture category balance and bank account balance both go down by the amount of the purchase. All of this can be kept track of on the computer in a spreadsheet. However, it's not easy to keep track of so many categories and bank balances. An easier solution is custom budgeting software designed for this purpose. I use and recommend YNAB.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf57118aba653d98bf7eac3e0d361328", "text": "There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however. Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme. Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations. At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go. That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand. That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing you have relatively easy access to that money. So it really becomes a self-discipline question. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fb5f84f227bcf9ce8d5c1fe5e39467d", "text": "\"I added \"\"Shared money in account\"\" (SMIA) as sub-account of my bank checking (CA) account and moved current difference to that account so total of CA was not changed but now private and shared money is separated. My cases would be handled the following The only downside I see is that now my balance in CA transaction log do not match exactly with bank so reconciliation will be slightly harder.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad506b5910152fb05fc69f2320f26b2a", "text": "\"In your comment, you said: It just seems a little stupid to me to go and put away money for the explicit purpose of emergencies (presumably in a way that's somehow different from how you would normally save money). Seems better to go and treat the money as you would normally, and then pull whatever you need from the money that you had saved. The problem with that logic is that people save money for many different things. You might save for a vacation, or a new refrigerator, or a new car, or a house, or your kids' college education. If you \"\"pull whatever you need\"\" for such expenses, you may find that when a real emergency occurs, you don't have enough money. The things you used it for may have been legitimate, reasonable expenses, but nonetheless you may later wish you had deferred those expenses until after you had built up a cushion. So the idea of an emergency fund is to designate certain money that is not to be used for \"\"whatever you need\"\", but specifically for unforeseen circumstances. Of course there can be debate about what counts as an emergency, but the main point is to distinguish saving for planned future expenses from saving for unplanned future expenses. Note that this doesn't mean the money has to be in a separate account, or saved in any special \"\"way\"\". It just means the money has to be considered by you as an emergency fund. For some people, it may be psychologically useful to put the emergency fund in a separate account that they never withdraw from. But even if you just have all your money in one savings account and you mentally tell yourself, \"\"I don't want to ever let the balance drop below $10,000, just so I have a safety cushion\"\" then you are effectively designating that $10,000 as an emergency fund.\"", "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": "50a16dcc61998797147b683df541c8cd", "text": "I think the issue here is you're starting with a criteria that doesn't actually exist in reality. A very small amount of research will uncover a plethora of options for savings accounts that pay far more interest than your basic checking account and don't require you to spend on the balance to earn the interest. The point of saving is to have a pot of money that you can dip in to when you need it, or when you're ready to spend it for it's intended purpose. That pot of money is not supposed to experience a lot of transactions. It shouldn't be commingled with funds that come and go on a daily basis. It doesn't make sense to have checks or a debit card attached to your savings account, because you shouldn't need access to that money that way; not to mention that those two things open the door to fraud on the money that's supposed to be there for you when you need it. Could you put your savings funds in to a checking account, sure. If we lived in a world where savings accounts that don't force you to jump through hoops to avoid fees didn't pay 10x more interest than interest bearing checking accounts that have similar ease of administration, more people may choose to house savings funds in checking accounts; but that's not the world we live in. Thanks to the back and forth in the comments below I'm now more certain of my position that if you want a high yielding checking account you'll have pay fees or initiate a certain number of debit card transactions, or both. No one wants fees, and you shouldn't be spending on your savings in order to earn interest on the balance. It is very easy to juice your savings account to the best rates available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ded88302704edac9ccacb87a3e81e195", "text": "Personally, I keep two regular checking accounts at different banks. One gets a direct deposit totaling the sum of my regular monthly bills and a prorated provision for longer term regular bills like semi-annual car insurance premiums. I leave a buffer in the account to account for the odd expensive electrical bill or rate increase or whatever. One gets a direct deposit of the rest which I then allocate to savings and spending. It makes sense to me to separate off regular planned expenses (rent/mortgage, utility bills, insurance premiums) from spending money because it lets me put the basics of my life on autopilot. An added benefit is I have a failover checking account in the event something happens to one of them. I don't keep significant amounts of money in either account and don't give transfer access to the savings accounts that store the bulk of my money. I wear a tinfoil hat when it comes to automatic bank transfers and account access... It doesn't make sense to me to keep deposits separate from spending, it makes less sense to me to spend off of a savings account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ee2f604bae71690b9dd02f5ebd3c2a0", "text": "\"Having a separate checking account for the business makes sense. It simplifies documenting your income/expenses. You can \"\"explain\"\" every dollar entering and exiting the account without having to remember that some of them were for non-business items. My credit union allowed me to have a 2nd checking account and allowed me to put whatever I wanted as the name on the check. I think this looked a little better than having my name on the check. I don't see the need for a separate checking account for investing. The money can be kept in a separate savings account that has no fees, and can even earn a little interest. Unless you are doing a lot of investment transactions a month this has worked for me. I fund IRAs and 529 plans this way. We get paychecks 4-5 times a month, but send money to each of the funds once a month. You will need a business account if the number of transactions becomes large. If you deposit dozens of checks every time you go to the bank, the bank will want to move you to a business account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd33cf6470421860ee098c213b08e658", "text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "651f98220897b2a34830fade5ce229dc", "text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44e8ffcdaa25fda415f20c71361c7001", "text": "With margin accounts you will be able to use the proceeds from a closed trade INSTANTLY. Without margin accounts this is the time you close the trade + 3 business days for clearing. In practice this means 4-5 days if there is a weekend or holiday involved between those 3 business days. This ties up your capital for an unfavorable amount of time, where as a margin account lets you continue to use the capital over and over again for more opportunities. You CANNOT sell to open a position in cash accounts. This means no short selling. This means no covered calls or spreads and MANY other strategies. These are the real differences you'll notice in a margin account vs a cash account. Then there are the myriad of regulations that dictate how much cash you should keep in your account for any margin position.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a00236aa266c91d0603faef7599e53", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e", "text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.", "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": "a53203e93e54c64b01441646a3c92d95", "text": "\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5469858d8cfd023db94dfea7688ed40", "text": "The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2141f8cd0a89ca1e520fc0df552b41af", "text": "A checking account is instant access. It can be tapped via check or debit card. A savings account is supposed to be used to accumulate cash for a goal that is is longer term or for an emergency. Many people need to separate these funds into different accounts to be able to know if they are overspending or falling short on their savings. In the United States the Federal Reserve also looks at these accounts differently. Money in a checking account generally can't be used to fund loans, money in a savings account can be used as a source of loans by the bank. An even greater percentage of funds in longer term accounts can be used to fund loans. This includes Certificates of Deposit, and retirement accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e6edb222832385511dea101954d223", "text": "\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \"\"hard-to-borrow fee\"\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123b23a493b497031a0d631a994c11dc", "text": "The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57a401b1ba49886d5d4103b0fe6c4bdb", "text": "\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da4277cb0f8295a68c9818ea0bd01a8", "text": "That is the maintenance margin required for that position. Whenever you trade using your margin account, you must (by law, and also separately often by stricter policies from the brokerage) have a certain percentage of equity - at least 25%, often higher. That protects the brokerage from significant losses if your position drops in value significantly (hopefully preventing the brokerage from failing outright in the event of a major collapse). If the amount of equity falls below the maintenance requirement, you will have a margin call and be required to put some cash (or equity) into the account to maintain that level. See Maintenance Margin definition on Investopedia for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13e66e7b5bb601ced10427a971fb9003", "text": "According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a478fa0ea54f8f2d9ad677ee7525e5a", "text": "hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.", "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": "ae55680dde8e88e3fe87424ee733de5e", "text": "I personally spoke with a Questrade agent about my question. To make a long story short: in a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan when buying U.S. stock with a Canadian money. Whereas, in a registered account (e.g. RRSP), the amount is converted on your behalf to cover the debit balance. Me: What happens if I open an account and I place an order for U.S. stocks with Canadian money? Is the amount converted at the time of transfer? How does that work? Agent: In a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan for a currency you do not have, however, if you have enough buying power, it will go through. The interest on the overnight balance is calculated daily and is charged on a monthly basis. We do not convert funds automatically in a margin account because you can have a debit cash balance. Agent: In a registered account, the Canada Revenue Agency does not allow a debit balance and therefore, we must convert your funds on your behalf to cover the debit balance if possible. We convert automatically overnight for a registered account. Agent: For example, if you buy U.S. equity you will need USD to buy it, and if you only have CAD, we will loan you USD to cover for that transaction. For example, if you had only $100 CAD and then wanted to buy U.S. stock worth $100 USD, then we will loan you $100 USD to purchase the stock. In a margin account we will not convert the funds automatically. Therefore, you will remain to have a $100 CAD credit and a $100 USD debit balance (or a loan) in your account. Me: I see, it means the longer I keep the stock, the higher interest will be? Agent: Well, yes, however, in a registered account there will be not be any interest since we convert your funds, but in a margin account, there will be interest until the debit balance is covered, or you can manually convert your funds by contacting us.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48f2f7e7684e11a35af00f9f7ed2509", "text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e", "text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5135a272a85115fd8dc1016cd7fe317", "text": "They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8d9810fb83e7253b932c4b16a16d9e55", "text": "\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5332ab4fcf9969669a3adebdc5e92194", "text": "\"Bloomberg suggests that two Fidelity funds hold preferred shares of Snapchat Inc.. Preferred shares hold more in common with bonds than with ordinary stock as they pay a fixed dividend, have lower liquidity, and don't have voting rights. Because of this lower liquidity they are not usually offered for sale on the market. Whether these funds are allowed to hold such illiquid assets is more a question for their strategy document than the law; it is completely legal for a company to hold a non-marketable interest in another, even if the company is privately held as Snapchat is. The strategy documents governing what the fund is permitted to hold, however, may restrict ownership either banning non-market holdings or restricting the percentage of assets held in illiquid instruments. Since IPO is very costly, funds like these who look to invest in new companies who have not been through IPO yet are a very good way of taking a diversified position in start-ups. Since they look to invest directly rather than through the market they are an attractive, low cost way for start-ups to generate funds to grow. The fund deals directly with the owners of the company to buy its shares. The markdown of the stock value reflects the accounting principle of marking to market (MTM) financial assets that do not have a trade price so as to reflect their fair value. This markdown implies that Fidelity believe that the total NPV of the company's net assets is lower than they had previously calculated. This probably reflects a lack of revenue streams coming into the business in the case of Snapchat. edit: by the way, since there is no market for start-up \"\"stocks\"\" pre-IPO my heart sinks a little every time I read the title of this question. I'm going to be sad all day now :(.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a519077e8b48ef99b0d20e77a981deb0", "text": "Thank you fgunthar. I was not aware of ILWs, but I agree - this is also the closest thing I've found. As for starting a fund, I'm unfortunately nowhere near that point. But, my curiosity seems to inevitably lead me to obscure areas like ILWs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046d9cdbbb9b9aa2eb877b718d47e705", "text": "Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a59b5ee28bfa32e75c8c0dafabfc958f", "text": "Well, there are many reasons that Lehman and Bear were allowed to go under. Lehman had much more exposure to real estate than Goldman and JP, and they were also the very first domino to fall, back when people didn't think the crisis was a full-blown crisis yet. As for Bear? I think the Fed harbored some hard feelings after the LTCM thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1417779afe385704661db0ac0cd35bc2", "text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9444595e7e45564762ff58a6c29bc5", "text": "\"While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of \"\"hypothetical\"\" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't). Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584", "text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e400ac547517161dca92438aa601eba3", "text": "\"Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to point out the post that triggered me to make this request in public is - Reddit post: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/ Specific response: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/naboa/fears_persist_that_the_us_labor_market_cannot_be/c37kj2t The sidebar says that political debate is not permitted in this forum, and until recently I would say this request had been adhered to. But this particular FT article, like others, can be dissected politically, and therefore shouldn't be in r/finance. It belongs in r/economics. Unfortunately, any posts that relate to current macroeconomic circumstances, especially central banking and global unemployment, will invite the Ron-Paulites and they really don't add any sort of value to r/finance, and they do politicize the forum and debate. I don't think ZeroHedge _ever_ has a place in this forum. The source is not credible and always has too much of a political angle to be in a forum that has declared itself as \"\"not a place for politics.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65ee8fe1e4d415e65ad72de915f56166", "text": "I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c913aa51881967e18ada87b98694a77", "text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085", "text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d664e07aaf29064a1f9ccdfd68672f5", "text": "\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b30b3318b9b323fa772c7dba51f37718", "text": "Good analysis/point, except you're missing the fact that most pensions allocate only a tiny fraction of their overall portfolios to hedge funds. So say you have a $2 billion pension fund, maybe $50 million of that is hedge funds. So basically, yes the pools of money will get smaller, but there's a lot of the overall pie that the hedge funds aren't eating (yet).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da2ace87efea30d3c2c957fdb254806", "text": "If you're talking about TRUPS (Trust Preferred securities) these are all but banned for new issuance under Dodd-Frank and other regulations. Although some companies still have outstanding TRUPS most have either matured, defaulted or been refinanced into some other form of debt. Its not really an available form of capital raising anymore.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3b24411e84ecc56597e67ce068060d8d", "text": "It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571", "text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7", "text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff6a6b8b9211bde03bed2c76076b87f7", "text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.", "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": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767", "text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0", "text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4f52a70a3ab8bb2cfc60c534f5106", "text": "Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16", "text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c", "text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd", "text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f", "text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0", "text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "03c7415a5969d6c021a0c81d9c57676a", "text": "\"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc585b7ea27021993ff665a62115bb94", "text": "\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0643397497e4dc64d752d89cd18058c", "text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "538ece1cb47d6e7c0109010d20252cfd", "text": "Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06c49498d63d86b623e896d1fc942919", "text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1f982eee1eda1e2eca54177a51801642", "text": "This was all luck, that amount of leverage will destroy your account in a single bad trade. You profit is way less than it should be because you are getting killed on fees. Take a look at the bitcoin trade, you should have 2,157.30 in profit but you only have 1825.42. And your currency trades were consistently positions that were worth $400,000 dollars, where you were pulling out ~$50 in profits, even though they should have been ~$80 profits. You are consistently getting 30% less than you should be, and consistently betting waaaaay bigger amounts than you account can really handle. Bad trades will probably have 30% greater losses than actual, and when the market moves the wrong direction then a single position will wipe out your account. Yes, you could have just bought bitcoin and gotten great profits. You totally nailed the directions of the markets! It is just a matter of time before you blow up, the trailing profits won't always help you when the market starts going down first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5232351523ed97263862c5fdb0f90727", "text": "Its the relative leverage available to retail traders between the two. In the US one can trade equities with 2:1 leverage while with commodities the leverage can go much higher. Combine this with the highly volatile nature of commodities, and it makes losing BIG too easy for the average trader.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "804df9dc0c69154c6660f3af9969ff6c", "text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d91739afcb1f6db012efe56d20c0d6a", "text": "I wouldn't use it to take leverage unless you don't mind loosing your entire investment (this is a possibility as shares are already quite volatile). However, you don't have to take leverage and still trade CFDs. Benefits of doing so: Disadvantages:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af", "text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1f22eaf15339096f3355287cd19ce8", "text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f68f47fbd9b39e55236bab0b0720c9dd", "text": "Don't like HFT? Use a stock exchange or dealer network that only allows manually entered trades. I hope readers are not convinced by this article to support the enactment of regulations that prevent people from using HFT. Maybe he's right and HFT is detrimental (which I doubt), but this is something that should be decided by the free market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d62e3a39316e279e4ee8a1655d33359f", "text": "\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e81a16d71ce9afded1354fb5f5592f9", "text": "\"It looks like these types of companies have to disclose the health of their accounts to CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). That is the gist I get at least from this article about the traders that lost money due to the Swiss removing the franc’s cap against the euro. The article says about the U.S. retail FOREX brokerage: Most of FXCM’s retail clients lost money in 2014, according to the company’s disclosures mandated by the CFTC. The percentage of losing accounts climbed from 67 percent in the first and second quarters to 68 percent in the third quarter and 70 percent in the fourth quarter. Side note: The Swiss National Bank abandoned the cap on the currency's value against the euro in mid-January 2015. But above paragraph provides data on FXCM’s retail clients in 2014. It could consequently be concluded that, even without \"\"freak events\"\" (such as Switzerland removing the franc cap), it is more likely for an investor to NOT make a profit on the FOREX market. This is also in line with what \"\"sdfasdf\"\" and \"\"Dario Fumagalli\"\" say in their answers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ea51041cbb14ef2276388529ab024ee", "text": "Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7f2391e31ce498b64165c6829fe0da9", "text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9073fe66e32efa5077a99658e8e018e5", "text": "What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.", "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": "87b57a3b64f2c884c0315b92c571e274", "text": "\"This advanced forex trading course allows forex traders to tracking intra-day banking activity in the forex market. Learn to trade forex using the trading secrets of the mega banks. These forex trading strategies will allow struggling retail traders to follow the \"\"footprint in the sand\"\" left by the mega banks, rather than getting ran over by them like most day traders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38983f5811ca126fbb64a7d8027e265a", "text": "Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly. The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated. That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well. In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy. In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars. Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years). I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market. Seems pretty easy, right ?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "148fe3c6b836d3b733d3f1f75a6f917a", "text": "\"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \"\"View prospectus and reports\"\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425", "text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41", "text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e8050a204949864b98ceb2a99091d727", "text": "Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info. None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info. The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet. Or you could use the one I use. http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d94213b22892d8c0384ec8dfa260408f", "text": "On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split. The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be. Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect. This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors. It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up. Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc9a3d345cfffb929751b0151c33abe", "text": "\"If you're looking to generate your own charts, you can get up-to-date TSP fund share prices in a Google Docs spreadsheet by \"\"scraping\"\" the data from the HTML of certain TSP webpages. You'll need to do this because the GoogleFinance function does not recognize \"\"private\"\" funds or collective trusts like those of the TSP. See this thread for tips: Bogleheads • View topic - GoogleFinance price quotes for TSP Funds\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2b2cd5d67aa4c7040942dcefbcbc302", "text": "The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before. Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy. Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93272704c3255f614b4bc281253cb3a1", "text": "The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4abb004cd0c36e66aa7992fff17d8e99", "text": "\"The full holdings will be listed in the annual report of the fund, obviously the holdings would only be completely accurate as of the date of the reporting. This is the most recent annual report for FMAGX. I got it from my Schwab research section under \"\"All Fund Documents\"\" but I'm sure you can find it other ways. When I use google to search for \"\"fmagx annual report\"\" this link was the first result.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3834023eee46345c1a76dc2fc03ec2f", "text": "Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949551126783dc387e3ca4d8f8389f3b", "text": "What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63980f924fc504831cdf2dbc4767afaf", "text": "Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7", "text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce033f385da61f67b0c492443451b1d", "text": "\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"", "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": "13b60ae729cdff6623eb64f3477e3dc9", "text": "\"I've just started using Personal Capital (www.personalcapital.com) after seeing the recommendation at several places. I believe it gives you what you want to see, but I don't think you can back populate it with old information. So if you log in and link accounts today, you'll have it going forward. I only put in my investment accounts as I use another tool to track my day-to-day spending. I use Personal Capital to track my investment returns over time. How did my portfolio compare to S&P 500, etc. And here is a shot of the \"\"You Index\"\" which I think is close to what you are looking for:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e81e513209a8bafc75b1ded70705dada", "text": "For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d5576aaeb2e53cae59db6dbc7a6bf75", "text": "I received an allowance growing up. There were stipulations on what I had to do with it that helped instill the values my parents wanted - in their case they were hoping to teach me to give money to my church, so I had a mandatory amount that I had to give when I received the allowance. To this day I still give money to the church, so I guess it stuck. The allowance was tied to my doing some basic chores around the house - but loosely. It wasn't a reward for doing those chores, but it would be taken away if I didn't do them. Before I was of a legal working age I could do larger unusual tasks around the house for more money. The relationship between chores and some form of allowance is, I think, tricky. I don't think kids should be taught that the only reason to work is to earn money. They won't earn money for keeping their future homes clean or by volunteering at the local food bank, but these are both good things to do. At the same time it is good to teach that work has a reward and that lack of work means lack of a reward. My parents set up a savings account for me quite early. Largely what went in there was birthday cash from relatives (a great thing to talk to any family members who might give your kids gifts about) and the income from my once-yearly sale of baked goods at a craft fair. These were bigger amounts of money that I could take pride in depositing, and keeping them in a bank helped prevent me from spending them willy-nilly. I also got a credit card at the age of 16 (only allowed in some states in the US, not sure about internationally). My parents oversaw my spending habits with it and made sure I always paid in full and on time. The money I spent was tied to my summer work in high school and college. I thought it was extremely valuable to learn how to manage a credit card before college when the card companies often seem to prey on young customers.", "title": "" } ]