Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-finance-50K

like 0

[ { "docid": "a9f3c77acba7dc65b21c04e277737cba", "text": "\"You are right on track with your idea of setting up a separate account for invoiced income. Create a new account with the type other asset and call it \"\"Receivables\"\" (or something similar). Every time you invoice a client, enter a credit to this account with the amount of the invoice. Once the client pays and you deposit a check, enter a transfer from the \"\"Receivables\"\" account to the bank account. EDIT I overlooked that you wish to account for not-yet-invoiced income. I think that's a bad idea. It will become confusing and will give you the false sense that your financial condition is better than it really is. There are plenty of stories about businesses that have stellar sales, but fail because of lack of cash flow (the business' bills become due before it gets paid by its own customers).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52eaf6d964328f4903cdb42885603788", "text": "It's my understanding that deferred revenue will be included as income as the services are rendered. In this way, gains originating from deferred revenue are not recognized until they are actually earned. It's a formality so the accounting adheres to the matching principle. It may help to view a DR as an advance payment (say like what an airline may do with ticket purchases that occur before the flight). It sounds like you're wanting to penalize the business for having to eventually provide a service. But I don't know if that would be accurate, I mean, from the business's perspective, isn't it always preferable to be paid in advance? Are you concerned the company may not have any recourse should the customer try to back out or something? I don't think I'm understanding your question, could you come at it from another angle to explain it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbc1d3eb64e1865de7e6b35e91270f70", "text": "I have a basic template for creating a balance sheet, cashflow statement and P&L. From here you can put in your assumptions, and expenses, then plug in your forecasted revenue (which you need to create on a separate spreadsheet. Would something like this help?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8018eefd837fd80fcc3c6bd9a4cb2eb5", "text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer mentions using a third \"\"house\"\" account. In my comment on his answer, I mentioned that you could simply use a bookkeeping account to track this instead of the overhead of an extra real bank account. Here's the detail of what I think will work for you. If you use a tool like gnucash (probably also possible in quicken, or if you use paper tracking, etc), create an account called \"\"Shared Expenses\"\". Create two sub accounts under that called \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\". (I'm assuming you'll have your other accounts tracked in the software as well.) I haven't fully tested this approach, so you may have to tweak it a little bit to get exactly what you want. When she pays the rent, record two transactions: When you pay the electric bill, record two transactions: Then you can see at a glance whether the balances on \"\"his\"\" and \"\"hers\"\" match.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adacca83dbfb4de58aba2e034d7e2a54", "text": "It sounds like you're mixing a simple checkbook register with double-entry bookkeeping. Do you need a double-entry level of rigor? Otherwise, why not have two columns, one for income (like a paycheck) and one for expenses (like paying a cable bill)? Then add up both columns and then take the difference of the sums to get your increase or decrease for the time period. If you want to break up income and expenses further, then you can do that too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccde069c7755ed62ee56a93b5a2fb5fd", "text": "I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd27658674e7d86ccf10bc37cd400f6c", "text": "\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \"\"Income:Benefits\"\"... but where do I credit that money to? \"\"Expenses:Groceries\"\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \"\"real\"\" expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "000a4e01345164ec5682c16d5afc672b", "text": "The best thing for you to do will be to start using the Cash Flow report instead of the Income and Expense report. Go to Reports -> Income and Expense -> Cash Flow Once the report is open, open the edit window and open the Accounts tab. There, choose your various cash accounts (checking, saving, etc.). In the General tab, choose the reporting period. (And then save the report settings so you don't need to go hunting for your cash accounts each time.) GnuCash will display for you all the inflows and outflows of money, which appears to be what you really want. Though GnuCash doesn't present the Cash Flow in a way that matches United States accounting rules (with sections for operating, investing, and financial cash flows separated), it is certainly fine for your personal use. If you want the total payment to show up as one line on the Cash Flow report, you will need to book the accrual of interest and the payment to the mortgage bank as two separate entries. Normal entry for mortgage payments (which shows up as a line for mortgage and a line for interest on your Cash Flow): Pair of entries to make full mortgage payment show up as one line on Cash Flow: Entry #1: Interest accrual Entry #2: Full mortgage payment (Tested in GnuCash 2.6.1)", "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": "79f1a5f67ed8cd607f935dae6a14f53f", "text": "Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695", "text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "680f18bf6027e733e8d1925af9eb13b8", "text": "Understandably, it appears as if one must construct the flows oneself because of the work involved to include every loan variation. First, it would be best to distinguish between cash and accrued, otherwise known as the economic, costs. The cash cost is, as you've identified, the payment. This is a reality for cash management, and it's wise that you wish to track it. However, by accruals, the only economic cost involved in the payment is the interest. The reason is because the rest of the payment flows from one form of asset to another, so if out of a $1,000 payment, $100 is principal repayment, you have merely traded $100 of cash for $100 of house. The cash costs will be accounted for on the cash flow statement while the accrued or economic costs will be accounted on the income statement. It appears as if you've accounted for this properly. However, for the resolution that you desire, the accounts must first flow through the income statement followed next instead of directly from assets to liabilities. This is where you can get a sense of the true costs of the home. To get better accrual resolution, credit cash and debit mortgage interest expense & principal repayment. Book the mortgage interest expense on the income statement and then cancel the principal repayment account with the loan account. The principal repayment should not be treated as an expense; however, the cash payment that pays down the mortgage balance should be booked so that it will appear on the cash flow statement. Because you weren't doing this before, and you were debiting the entire payment off of the loan, you should probably notice your booked loan account diverging from the actual. This proper booking will resolve that. When you are comfortable with booking the payments, you can book unrealized gains and losses by marking the house to market in this statement to get a better understanding of your financial position. The cash flow statement with proper bookings should show how the cash has flowed, so if it is according to standards, household operations should show a positive flow from labor/investments less the amount of interest expense while financing will show a negative flow from principal repayment. Investing due to the home should show no change due to mortgage payments because the house has already been acquired, thus there was a large outflow when cash was paid to acquire the home. The program should give some way to classify accounts so that they are either operational, investing, or financing. All income & expenses are operational. All investments such as equities, credit assets, and the home are investing. All liabilities are financing. To book the installment payment $X which consists of $Y in interest and $Z in principal: To resolve the reduction in principal: As long as the accounts are properly classified, GnuCash probably does the rest for you, but if not, to resolve the expense: Finally, net income is resolved: My guess is that GnuCash derives the cash flow statement indirectly, but you can do the entry by simply: In this case, it happily resembles the first accrued entry, but with cash, that's all that is necessary by the direct method.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "494c5a502d369a1c921ab752b8ff5948", "text": "\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8951eceea45c81755e69e3b3caad8785", "text": "\"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call \"\"Temporary Assets and Liabilities\"\" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases). So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (\"\"transferred\"\" in Quicken terms). The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93651496bbc8ad51ee18fb100f61dfbc", "text": "I used to use Quicken, but support for that has been suspended in the UK. I had started using Mvelopes, but support for that was suspended as well! What I use now is an IPhone app called IXpenseit to track my spending.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6cba1993177fbecbd72291c889c6d904", "text": "Yes, there is indeed a great alternative for all European residents: getting a Revolut account. Revolut is a fully-online bank who's main benefits include the lack of fees (with some limits) and a great exchange rate for all currency operations (better than what you would get at any brick and mortar bank in Europe). In your particular scenario it would work as following: This is what I personally use to handle a salary in EUR while living in Czech Republic. Things might change in the future once they run out of investor money, but for now it's the only solution I know for converting currencies without a loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e6e9db9180e560964e04f5236776f4b", "text": "You could use a Credit or Debit Card running in US $, drawing from your US$ account, and pay everything with it. If you pick a company with free foreign conversions, you would get the standard interbank exchange ratio every time you pay, with no fee. For the small payments where credit cards are not accpeted or useful you can convert some cash once every some month - all significant amounts should work with credit or debit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc09b6dfa8e6977d71d0fb8eb8d69b13", "text": "Cheaper and faster are usually mutually exclusive. If you want faster, nothing is faster than cash. I would recommend using an ATM to withdraw cash from your USD account as Florints and then use as appropriate. If you want cheaper, then the cheapest currency conversion commonly available is foreign exchange / transfer services like OFX / XE Trade / Transferwise. Turn around time on these can be as little as a business day or two but more commonly takes a few business days, but they typically offer the best currency exchange rates at the lowest cost. If you must make regular payments to 3rd parties, you can set these services up to send the converted currency to a 3rd party rather than back to your own account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f", "text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2d5a66526ac8393e16c0a106c845b43", "text": "Have you tried TransferWise. They offer nice cross currency transfers with really low rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5a5158de606e7e460cd70ae9d56b730", "text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"", "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": "3c9b27a19b0086ba941085e3b3ad0c19", "text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e714ca3f65ef959e2f5a651731a8f4bf", "text": "The GnuCash tutorial has some basics on double entry accounting: http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_accounting1.html#basics_accountingdouble2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4928107daac55e5455a1f8a674e89ce", "text": "Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68e8dd4cb04f33ac12a48e82504d96dc", "text": "If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73263b07ceab7ff831dd179b39735b74", "text": "Atm machine and my Credit Union account. Low fees (often zero, if the machine is on any of the same networks) and decent exchange rate, and no need to carry cash or traveler's checks to be exchanged. Alternatively, pay by credit card, though there is a foreign transaction fee on that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21cef6e11914c95fd0ec6207b10be7a6", "text": "Yes, one such provider is: https://www.fxcompared.com/ They allow you to compare a number of foreign currency providers, and take into account all of the fees and spreads, and give you a simple number which you can use to compare them - the amount of foreign currency you get for your domestic currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "513c294394934b6882b8506b9d15ffa4", "text": "All Indian Banks are offering USD accounts known as multicurrency account, where you can hold your fund, this account also permits you to book the USD to INR rates in advance if you require. You can keep your money in this account and also can remit the same back to source or other destination country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43a9b92312ba34413f5070c89cd8da50", "text": "I live in europe but have been paid in usd for the last few years and the best strategy I've found is to average in and average out. i.e. if you are going in August then buy some Euro every few weeks until you go. At least this way you mitigate the risk involved somewhat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30e4fb242f8e042d3c4cc995bc4986e", "text": "Canada, like other second-rate economies with weak currencies, provides USD accounts. It is not the same vice versa. It is rare to find a direct deposit foreign currency account in the US as it is the world-leading currency.", "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": "cda9331c5800927240653668f7334abc", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b830b23272edea7523fbd60e05bdec03", "text": "Sounds like you have a goldbug whispering in your ear. The Coinage Act doesn't restrict you from using foreign currency or lawful commodity or service to fulfill a debt. You are free to do that whenever you enter into an explicit or implicit contract with another party. If that wasn't the case, your kid trading his bag of chips for a bag of cookies at lunch would be a criminal act. It does mean that you ultimately must accept US currency to settle a debt. Following the previous example, if your kid gives his friend the bag of chips, but the cookies get destroyed somehow before being transferred, the friend can offer a couple of dollars to complete the transaction. The whole point of the Coinage Acts is to set a level playing field. If you don't pick one dominant store of value, you have a situation where it is impossible to evaluate the cost of goods and services. It has nothing to do with some competition with foreign currency. A robust, modern economy requires an adequate supply of capital and a common reference point for value within the economy. Think about it further with respect to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. Would you want a fiscally profligate state like California or New York to be able to print money and compel you as a contractor, employee or creditor to accept their scrip as payment? (Or worse, require payment in Gold or Vermont-issued dollars, but pay you in their money.) Of course not. That's why the Federal government controls the currency, and a dollar in Alaska is the same as a dollar in Georgia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f192e3451471bd51285576936d970749", "text": "If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e76aee75fef6dbe440515cd180e1599e", "text": "Shops in most touristic places tend to accept major currencies (at least dollar and euro). I remember a trip in Istanbul before the euro existed, the kids selling postcards near the blue mosque were able to guess your country and announce in your language the price in your currency.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cbf4a5de9f84ac8dfd484389fa250ed0", "text": "\"Currently, there is simply no reason to do so. It's not a problem. It is no more of a problem or effort to denote \"\"5,000\"\" than it is to denote \"\"50.00\"\". But if there were a reason to do so, it wouldn't be all that difficult. Of course there would be some minor complications because some people (mostly old people presumably) would take time getting used to it, but nothing that would stop a nation from doing so. In Iceland, this has happened on several occasions in the past and while Iceland is indeed a very small economy, it shouldn't be that difficult at all for a larger one. A country would need a grace period while the old currency is still valid, new editions of already circulating cash would need to be produced, and a coordinated time would need to be set, at which point financial institutions change their balances. Of course it would take some planning and coordination, but nothing close to for example unifying two or more currencies into one, like the did with the euro. The biggest side-effect there was an inflation shot when the currencies got changed in each country, but this can be done even with giant economies like Germany and France. Cutting off two zeros would be a cakewalk in comparison. But in case of currencies like the Japanese Yen, there is simply no reason to take off 2 zeros yet. Northern-Americans may find it strange that the numbers are so high, but that's merely a matter of what you're used to. There is no added complication in paying 5.000 vs. 50 at a restaurant, it merely takes more space on a computer screen and bill, and that's not a real problem. Besides, most of the time, even in N-America, the cents are listed as well, and that doesn't seem to be enough of a problem for people to concern themselves with. It's only when you get into hyper-inflation when the shear space required for denoting prices becomes a problem, that economies have a real reason to cut off zeros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a3309a18a2c1be2bdf75d191c98722", "text": "If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edb1f705ad85940e241269d785bb0f6b", "text": "Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "791b9c92810949d5143fb8de3b0426a3", "text": "I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc", "text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bd58cfcf59df1678bf6560942b4d86c", "text": "No, there is nothing on the sidelines. Currency is an investment. There is no such thing as uninvested wealth. If you had a million in USD at the beginning of 2017, you would currently be out about sixty grand. There is no neutral way to store wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "03a02fa136bd870c1b7e0c6f9b687c59", "text": "Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d7e6b46352b8e46c514f9e74f02502", "text": "There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m", "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": "a1497dff2d1b493e990d08b1c6eb2a8f", "text": "Any person at any time may produce their own currency, one can even do so on the back of a paper napkin, ripped beer coaster or whatever. This is NOT a banking privilege, it is within the lawful ability of anyone capable of engaging in commerce. It is called a 'negotiable instrument' ... it gives the holder rights to a sum of money. Notice that I say 'holder' ... this is what distinguishes it from a non-negotiable instrument, the fact that you don't need to redeem it from source, you can pass it to another who then becomes the 'holder in due course' and thus obtains the rights conferred. The conferable rights over a sum of money (or, indeed, other asset) are themselves 'value' Do banks do this ? Yes, all the time! ... one of the simplest examples are cheques drawn against the bank, which are considered 'as good as cash'. Usually they will be drawn out to the order of the person you wish to pay ... but can equally be drawn out to bearer. The only reasons they resist making out to bearer is : But you can write your own at 'any time' on 'any thing' ... See the apocryphal, yet deliciously entertaining, tale of the 'negotiable cow'", "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": "3048fcd106371966f419a784a95ddf8e", "text": "The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4", "text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "847ec3502d4bba1350c0a140e560d07c", "text": "Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a6836e3ee612b5edaa4d1ad8008ede62", "text": "My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception: > Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below. If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7c6dd68f11e43b59b0781486252ba82", "text": "No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions. However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally, this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form 8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no exempt use , later. See more here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f94d44078540e4975937396e59a5facd", "text": "\"I did a little research and found the eligible investments for TFSAs. In this document under heading \"\"Shares of private and other corporations\"\", sub heading \"\"Shares of small business corporations\"\" there is clause about owning less than 10% share and less than $25000 total value of the corporation. Generally, a connected shareholder of a corporation (as defined in subsection 4901(2) of > the Regulations) at any time is a person who owns, directly or indirectly, at that time, 10% or more of the shares of any class of shares of the corporation or of any other corporation related to the corporation. However, where • such a person is dealing at arm's length with the corporation or any other related corporation; and • the aggregate cost amount of all shares of the corporation or any other related corporation the person owns, or is deemed to own, is less than $25,000 that person will not be a connected shareholder of the corporation. For purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests, the rules in the definition of ìspecified shareholderî in subsection 248(1) apply with the result that certain shares will be deemed to be owned by the shareholder. For example, by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, of that definition, an annuitant, a beneficiary or a subscriber under a plan trust is deemed to own the shares owned by a person with whom the annuitant, beneficiary or subscriber is not dealing at armís length, as well as the shares owned by the plan trust. In addition, any share that • the annuitant, beneficiary, or subscriber under a plan trust; or • a person not dealing at arm's length with any of the above has a right to acquire is also included in the calculation of the percentage and cost amount of the shares held for purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests pursuant to subsection 4901(2.2) of the Regulations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5b994a25ca09a67f011ce562354c85e", "text": "\"I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview. Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, \"\"Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!\"\" Okay, now after the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments. Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc. There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acff7526aae2b84408778f98027f005", "text": "1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1 million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings. In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing. In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices. I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies. A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open.", "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": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436", "text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ea060c6609dda916ca73e499a6d44a5", "text": "A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead718688f897093ee037a805e51a8eb", "text": "As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c271dc160cc14046b923589c6d17ed7", "text": "You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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 $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f531cb1fedb1aedb3083c67fa8c7fb9a", "text": "This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63", "text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b83a3611deb97cfa58b7ba4e4c074fc7", "text": "To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important. That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession. Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500. Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm. On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler. Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts. There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones. If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes: Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7dba0900e0c8d2e5b352741e92b3abfd", "text": "Equal weighted indexes are not theoretically meant to be less volatile or less risky; they're just a different way to weigh stocks in an index. If you had a problem that hurt small caps more than large caps, an equal weighted index will be hurt more than a market-cap weighted one. On the other hand, if you consider that second rung companies have come up to replace the top layer, it makes sense to weigh them on par. History changes on a per-country basis - in India, for instance, the market's so small at the lower-cap end that big money chases only the large caps, which go up more in a liquidity driven move. But in a more secular period (like the last 18 months) we see that smaller caps have outperformed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d004b1d7e0b8e2309af0ee4e6b08f4d", "text": "Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9372e6dd41524dc78d7511dbcc45a15", "text": "It really varies based on the stock (volatility is the main determining factor), and whether you are talking about temporary or permanent price impact, how long you are trading, etc. The below paper fits a functional form to a set of Citigroup data and estimates for a 10% dtv trade in a large cap like IBM the price would move on the order of 30bps. Presumably smallcaps would be more expensive. Their estimate seems a bit low to me but I'm more familiar with futures, so maybe it's not unreasonable https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JjDsU_L-CI33yQSh4oKQDA&url=http://www.math.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/costestim.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CCQQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNGN6LmPb9sHR5dljcJJ2rV4bNE4Jg&sig2=WYhcCUFr8WcRfetA24wXLg", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0bae64c25e149c26be7133c595e6050", "text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76bd5b548350bd4dc9468e92b1c95d13", "text": "I agree. I think that is a good point, and that is also why I wanted to post and ask. If I could do this in a bear market I bet I could be Warren Buffett by the time my heart stops. I use my benchmark as a mix of S&P, Nasdaq, and Russell 3000. I got a near flat market for 2015 (only 0.23%). I thought that was decent but yes the rest of the years have been quite bullish", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8", "text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3c2583945301f8f9b14c9f8f0af19fa", "text": "S & P's site has a methodology link that contains the following which may be of use: Market Capitalization. Unadjusted market capitalization of US$ 4.6 billion or more for the S&P 500, US$ 1.2 billion to US$ 5.1 billion for the S&P MidCap 400, and US$ 350 million to US$ 1.6 billion for the S&P SmallCap 600. The market cap of a potential addition to an index is looked at in the context of its short- and medium-term historical trends, as well as those of its industry. These ranges are reviewed from time to time to assure consistency with market conditions. Liquidity. Adequate liquidity and reasonable price – the ratio of annual dollar value traded to float adjusted market capitalization should be 1.00 or greater, and the company should trade a minimum of 250,000 shares in each of the six months leading up to the evaluation date. Domicile. U.S. companies. For index purposes, a U.S. company has the following characteristics: The final determination of domicile eligibility is made by the U.S. Index Committee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3bf8deef4aa1a57d273ab02cd54fbce", "text": "I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the *daily* return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80ac03554096a16e17336eac7100f440", "text": "\"So you're basically saying that average market fluctuations have an affect on individual stocks, because individual stocks are often priced in relation to the growth of the market as a whole? Also, what kinds of investments would be considered \"\"risk free\"\" in this nomenclature?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c844760b10919a890be503d0f7d801", "text": "\"They don't, actually. Though in some time frames S&P 500 growth out performs S&P 500, it often lags. This is because \"\"growth\"\" doesn't refer to what happens to your account, but rather the type of stock in the index -- roughly speaking, it's the half of the S&P with the best earnings growth. That would be great, except it's not looking for is to see if that growth is worth buying. A stock with a 20% growth rate is a great buy at a P/E of 15, but a terrible buy at P/E/ 50. That leads to what JB King was talking about -- there's also the S&P 500 Value, which is roughly the cheapest stocks relative to earnings. Value does tend to beat the broad index over the long haul, because there's nothing like getting a good deal (note a stock can be in both the growth and value categories). This holds true with other indexes as well like the Russel 2000. All that said, you're not going to see a huge difference between S&P 500 and S&P 500 Growth. I believe this is because the S&P 500 itself leans a bit to the growthy side. PS: With VOOG Vanguard is tracking the S&P 500 Growth Index, which is actually a thing and not Vanguard itself filtering stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a44daf7196d15483dc2a93284ac04b00", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0368cb6eed25fe1d2d0b92360ba78eec", "text": "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Lottery Tickets notes the work of Fama and French who researched the idea of a small-cap premium along with a value premium that may be useful to note in terms of what has outperformed if one looks from 1926 to present. Slice and dice would also be another article about an approach that over weights the small-cap and value sides of things if you want another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59d3168ad54e0a80440d3066acad7246", "text": "This doesn't really make sense, as the small cap indices have a similar rate of growth as the s&p 500. The global scale has some relevance, but exports are included in GDP as well, so it's not the full story. A better answer, as is noted in comments lower down, is that the S&P does not **grow** at 6%. It *returns* 6% per year. The dividend yield of the s&p is a bit over 2%. Dividends are not growth, they are simply income; they may also grow themselves, but rarely by 6% per year (in real terms). Additional income that's not paid out in dividends probably amounts to another 1-2%. Growth is the final 1-3%, which makes it roughly match GDP.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54284d2a3c8a95d3298247d368e50224", "text": "\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3abfe6c068b124327ded89f42cbe279f", "text": "\"I think it's an argument for Keynesian economic policy, basically an abridged version of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article: Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. \"\"private sector decisions\"\" are bottom-up: millions of businesses and individuals make economic decisions and \"\"the economy\"\" is the sum of what they do. \"\"monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government\"\" are top-down: central institutions implement measures that are intended to have a positive effect (such as reducing unemployment) on millions of individuals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ddc4c4bb893b0eae2596283e5908f9e", "text": "\"Top down approach needed when bottom-up approach of markets leads to periods of high unemployment Imagine a chart that starts with one point at the top and breaks it down into the details by the time you get to the bottom. People can read this chart either from the top and go down or from the bottom and go up. Wikipedia does have articles on Top-down and bottom-up design if you want more detail than I give here. Top down refers to the idea of starting at a high level and then working down to get into the details. For example, in planning a vacation, one could start with what continent to go, then which country, then which cities in that country and so forth. Thus, the idea here would be to start with macroeconomic trends and then create a strategy to fix this as the other way is what created the problem. The idea of taking a subject or system and breaking it down into individual pieces would be another way to state this. Bottom up refers to the idea of starting with the details and then build up to get a general idea. To use the vacation example again, this is starting with the cities and then building up to build the overall itinerary. Within political circles you may here of \"\"grassroots\"\" efforts where citizens will form groups to gain influence. This would be an example of bottom up since it is starting with the people. The idea of taking individual components and putting them together to build up something would be another way to state this. The statement is saying that a completely different style of approach will be necessary than the one that created the problem here.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1096c556637346a2f810598061b421e2", "text": "The tried-and-true policy would be government spending (and not just any government spending, but one with positive feedback on the whole economy) such as specific subsidized industry or high-tech projects (most likely wind/solar, high-efficiency and hybrid cars, etc.). And this includes something like addition education in fields that are needed. Instead we give money to banks, tax breaks for the already wealthy, and then deregulate finance when the problem seemed to stem from deregulation and non-enforcement. If we don't hit a bigger bottom in 1-5 years - I'd eat my shorts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84c94ad004b29e8147168170dafdae1", "text": "Upstream is into businesses that supply the original business; downstream is into businesses that make use of the original product. So in that description, what they are saying is that the original business received products from plantations and sent products to manufacturing. This is also called vertical integration. Meaning that they are diversifying along their supply chain so that they control more of it. This is in contrast with horizontal integration, where they move into new products that either compete with the existing products or which are entirely separate. In general, the upside of vertical integration is that a company is less reliant on suppliers (and intermediate consumers) and has more control over its supply chain. The downside is that they have less opportunity to partner with other companies in the same supply chain, as they compete with them. Some companies are better at managing to do both. For example, Amazon.com has integrated fulfillment and sales. But partners can still do their own fulfillment and/or sales, choosing how much to send out to Amazon. If you are investing in individual stocks, integrated companies can be problematic in that they cut across diversification areas. So they can be harder to balance with other stocks. You can either buy plantations, transport, and manufacturing together or not buy at all. If your investment strategy says to increase plantations and reduce manufacturing, this can be difficult to implement with an integrated company. Of course, everyone else has the same problem, which can lead to integrated companies being undervalued. So they may be an opportunity as a value stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6f4f331cde178e6cbfb007797db5f9", "text": "The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae4d07bfbe8ca228742be94731ed1111", "text": "It all depends on the country. In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc). In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor. This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them). Mobility at the bottom is reversed. Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4db78062d6ef5b07f17f67ed87585f1", "text": "I like the article concept, about seeking help where needed. This is something where an advisory board comes into play. That said, it is super important that you seek advice specifically in areas you are lacking. You want fresh ideas and people that will challenge your ideas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7ccceb6855d0b5e64b62d2732212069", "text": "I'm aware that this is not how modern economics works. I considered pursuing a graduate degree in the subject, but chose not to because I disagree with the epistemological foundations of the approach. My ideas aren't based in explicit observation of reality, as I prioritize reason above observation. The difference between the two approaches is similar to the difference between pure mathematics and applied mathematics, where the rationalist (my perspective) is pure math, and the empiricist (the modern economist) is applied math. If you would include the theorems and abstractions of pure mathematics as fantasy, then my ideas are indeed based in fantasy, but you'd then have to explain why such an approach is wrong given how often the seemingly useless work of pure math ends up proving highly valuable in the long run (e.g. number theory and computer science).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07ae20dd499e31ebeaf9a49dc58692cc", "text": "\"My problem with this is that there's no \"\"one size fits all\"\" approach to eliminating poverty. These are very much middle-class values and I don't think imposing them on impoverished children is the right approach. And besides, poverty itself can be fluid. Most kids already in poverty are stuck in generational poverty, but there's also situational poverty that can affect anyone at any time. For kids in generational poverty, it's about survival. They don't plan ahead because they don't have the luxury to do that. It's day to day with them, with each day bringing a new challenge. Do I know what we have to do to eliminate poverty? No, and I don't think anyone does. But I do think whatever approach we take should be multifaceted and take into account the environmental contexts that shape a person's life. This kind of lazy policymaking isn't gonna cut it\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e96dd8b815036db335e1e2920e91435", "text": "True but it isn't too difficult . Perhaps a classic example would be Sony - 5 years losses , this last year US$1.1B , how long can it last ?! However the trick is not to initially concentrate on the corporates but to concentrate on the small to medium sized companies and to ensure that they are strategically placed engineering wise to step in and take over . Business wise they will be used to adapting quickly .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18f66dae6ed740c7b842bf4c81daeba5", "text": "\"I like stuff like this for perspective but I found the article lacking in mechanics as to how to unlearn, how to apply it, etc. I may have missed it though. This reminds me of my CEO challenging everyone at every level to \"\"innovate\"\". Need more of the \"\"how\"\" behind these kinds of objectives. It's great to shed preconceptions, think outside the box, etc but that's been managerial buzz speak for years, and yet we still find ourselves within the box. Focusing on how to get out of it seems like a worthy cause.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9581148b6453c1697ee377b6f87be88", "text": "The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1407a11a1bfd45195cc54d12195ad9d1", "text": "\"In that example, \"\"creating money\"\" could be used interchangeably with \"\"making promises\"\". There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "536a9451d2d6c78952cbfd226f8e9cdc", "text": "I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.", "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": "fe3227e7377e8a31b6fdc7d6f59a3ffe", "text": "Have you read is letter? He's saying thanks to the government for basically saving the economy. Warren Buffet was from day 1 a strong supporter of the bailout program. I'm sorry for my ignorance but what ''output'' are you talking about? As I understand you don't just want to establish a basic income but want to change the whole monetary system? And you can't even explain it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be2baa6c913b0b5127fcb95afa608ac4", "text": "\"I assume you are referring to Multi-Level Marketing, which have organizational structures that look like pyramids. As others have pointed out Ponzi schemes (often referred to as pyramid) are illegal. The key to multi-level marketing is understanding the true objective. It is not to sell soap, vitamins, cell phone plans or whatever. The key is to understand that you are building a marketing organization. You must motivate and train others to do the same. You cannot rely on others to do it for you, you must do it yourself. If you just are there to sell product, you won't make any money. If you have a lot of friends that you can convince to sign up, you won't make any money. If you can build a marketing organization, you can make a lot of money. While the marketing for MLMs often say \"\"anyone can do it\"\", such things waste people's time. There are certain personality types that are not suited for such skills. Also if one posses those types of skills, there may be better opportunities in traditional companies. Maybe.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ce310edffda39222d1798d3c4619e581", "text": "\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \"\"funding some … plans\"\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\"", "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": "62dde17ebd37c396d6b19d81e0eb7530", "text": "One more scenario is when the company already has maturing debt. e.g Company took out a debt of 2 billion in 2010 and is maturing 2016. It has paid back say 500 million but has to pay back the debtors the remaining 1.5 billion. It will again go to the debt markets to fund this 1.5 billion maybe at better terms than the 2010 issue based on market conditions and its business. The debt is to keep the business running or grow it. The people issuing debt will do complete research before issuing the debt. It can always sell stock but that results in dilution and affects shareholders. Debt also affects shareholders but when interest rates are lower, companies tend to go to debt markets. Although sometimes they can just do a secondary and be done with it if the float is low.", "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": "38788ad6f9a61ff19544e18225df86ab", "text": "It (usually) is better to use Other Peoples Money (OPM) than your own. This is something that Donald Trump has mastered. If you use OPM and something goes wrong you can declare bankruptcy and wipe out that debt. The Donald has done this more than once. At the fantastic low Intrest rates a company would be wasting resources if they only used their own money.", "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": "505430a35e0e009f900ddb5fa2316cb6", "text": "Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13852cdf972191f4fed31803125728b2", "text": "To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec. Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec. All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d7dd3d16b1dbe15092156bd866d1eef", "text": "Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88eb05212e390eb6b77372ec51fdc3ee", "text": "\"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word \"\"discount\"\", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is \"\"premium\"\". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a \"\"discount to par\"\" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a \"\"premium to par\"\" (greater than 100 dollar price)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e53e6f144debe88b504c07dbf20af701", "text": "Issuing/selling equity vs debt is often done during very different periods of a company's life cycle and for very different reasons. If I were to generalize - equity is most typically involved in the beginning and end of a business, debt in the middle. In the beginning your company has no cash flow, no track record so the only people willing to invest are angels/venture capitalists/true believers/friends & family. People who are willing to take risk either because they like you or they believe there is a chance of high risk/high reward. In the middle of the life cycle (when the company has a demonstrated track record), it is easier to issue debt because you have stable cash flows which banks find attractive. Banks are low risk, low return investors. Towards the end of a company's life cycle the owners may decide they have successfully grown a business and want to retire (or start a new business) or maybe they just want to lock in the earnings they've achieved which are sitting in the company. In this case they may sell the company entirely to a rival firm or a private equity group. I feel like OP's original question is a bit off because I don't find too many situations where a company is seriously considering both equity and debt alternatives. Usually it is a variety of equity offerings **or** a variety of debt offerings and you're trying to figure out which one is better of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1bae7921e2964548e4bfb52f74808c", "text": "\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ede27f0c9b40ca18f3c17d00ab7071", "text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cc6bb61f9c5b56558eef57ce1ed1a", "text": "\"You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say \"\"the company is in trouble\"\" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fbcb91f3b5b42e99a3cd31ec42b68b4", "text": "When individuals take on a loan, it's often in the form of a mortgage, right? And companies take out business loans all the time, only they might be a regular bank loan and not in the form of buying bonds, more similar to when an individual takes a loan. I was seeing through what process a firm would have to go through in order to get funding via the bond process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d47624bf870dbd7329aeee3c6afc574", "text": "What about in the case of a company with unexpectedly low cash (and therefore an inability to easily pay out dividends) but with a surplus of inventory? Obviously the investors should receive some premium for that, because I think anyone would prefer cash, but there are certainly extreme circumstances where it might be appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9596fdd07f028fb48fc48c5d8b976a60", "text": "Almost every company carries massive debt. From a financial standpoint a company that has less than 70% of it's capital in debt is not utilizing it's growth potential. There are a few companies that buck this trend but the vast majority of corporations carry absolutely massive debt at all time. Yes even the profitable ones. As long as they pay according to the plan all is well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d84c637b2391c22cd0374fda950391", "text": "\"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a \"\"guaranteed stock dividend\"\". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment.\"", "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": "d9d5189c132f0a6e7e2c252016c06ba4", "text": "You could try asking Merrill Lynch, (general inquiries) :- http://www.ml.com/index.asp?id=7695_114042 So far I only found a few graphics :- http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/merrill_lynch_and_company/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/17/us-merrilllynch-results-idUSWNAS674520080117 http://www.stocktradingtogo.com/2008/09/15/merrill-lynch-saved-by-bank-of-america-buyout/", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b0450d67e8cbf88413d3c97a3f56ac2f", "text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "2ee64c477f71e46524f285924da4742c", "text": "Dow Jones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average NASDAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100 (scroll down) S&P Tricky. From what I can find, you need to be in Harvard Business School, a member of CRSP, or have access to Bloomberg's databases. S&P did have the info available years ago, but no longer that I can find.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db2f63f6fc2c53219ecac35428d7ce7d", "text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, Lawson Software Inc listed on the NASDAQ on 7 Dec 2001 and delisted on 6 Jul 2011. Its final traded price was $11.23. It was taken over by Infor who bid $11.25 per share. Source: Symbol LWSN-201107 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f273f70f6f09dc36714382c6fe6fa2f", "text": "Morningstar has that 10 history at http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=JNJ&region=usa&culture=en-US", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357", "text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though", "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": "5e9f78b304262a787f28122f0e2865ff", "text": "I haven't seen one of these in quite some time. Back in the 1970s, maybe the 1980s, stock brokers would occasionally send their retail clients a complimentary copy once in a while. Also, I remember the local newspaper would offer a year-end edition for a few dollars (maybe $3) and that edition would include the newspaper company's name on the cover. They were very handy little guides measuring 5 1/2 x 8 (horizontal) with one line devoted to each company. They listed hundreds of publicly traded companies and had basic info on each company. As you stated, for further info you needed to go to the library and follow-up with the big S&P and/or Moody's manuals. That was long before the internet made such info available at the click of a button on a home computer!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5819b1b16bb5a329fb87dea149f8148b", "text": "Goldprice.org has different currencies and historical data. I think silverprice.org also has historical data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c37c24f30645f6131887178f02722dc", "text": "FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b891f946fa4bcd62c8d9379a78d169d9", "text": "I agree that a random page on the internet is not always a good source, but at the same time I will use Google or Yahoo Finance to look up US/EU equities, even though those sites are not authoritative and offer zero guarantees as to the accuracy of their data. In the same vein you could try a website devoted to warrants in your market. For example, I Googled toronto stock exchange warrants and the very first link took me to a site with all the information you mentioned. The authoritative source for the information would be the listing exchange, but I've spent five minutes on the TSX website and couldn't find even a fraction of the information about that warrant that I found on the non-authoritative site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afa477c7daa7926a74e9d65618230edc", "text": "A quick search showed me that UEP merged into Ameren on Dec 31, 1997, and Ameren still exists today. So I took a look at Ameren's Investor Relations website. Unfortunately, they don't provide historical stock prices prior to Ameren forming, so starting with 1998. However, I've had good luck in the past emailing a company's investor relations contact and asking for data like this that isn't on the website. It's reasonably likely they'll have internal records they could look it up within.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af78c4c4186788dd4ac2f120b3c02a17", "text": "Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1", "text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e762d578a09726a9f767ed87d82bde3", "text": "I know of no free source for 10 years historical data on a large set of companies. Now, if it's just a single company or small number that interest you, contact Investor Relations at the company(ies) in question; they may be willing to send you the data for free.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a6ee4e5de0eaac8cd605fe3bd7730482", "text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1004cf6b56fd3977ba674b6a4263bb37", "text": "You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "75ffcd067af42e2df03285f2b01a8697", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b7ccc105a31477357e8d060940712c", "text": "This ETFchannel.com page shows which ETFs hold Wells Fargo and you can search other stocks the get the same information on that site. This the same information for Google This even tells you what percentage of an ETF is a particular stock. Be warned that this site is not entirely free. You will be limited to 6 pages in 6 hours unless you pay for a subscription. Additionally ETFdb.com offers a similar tool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80", "text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6473d727ce6f8ff477b24768d2c05b49", "text": "\"Option pricing models used by exchanges to calculate settlement prices (premiums) use a volatility measure usually describes as the current actual volatility. This is a historic volatility measure based on standard deviation across a given time period - usually 30 to 90 days. During a trading session, an investor can use the readily available information for a given option to infer the \"\"implied volatility\"\". Presumably you know the option pricing model (Black-Scholes). It is easy to calculate the other variables used in the pricing model - the time value, the strike price, the spot price, the \"\"risk free\"\" interest rate, and anything else I may have forgotten right now. Plug all of these into the model and solve for volatility. This give the \"\"implied volatility\"\", so named because it has been inferred from the current price (bid or offer). Of course, there is no guarantee that the calculated (implied) volatility will match the volatility used by the exchange in their calculation of fair price at settlement on the day (or on the previous day's settlement). Comparing the implied volatility from the previous day's settlement price to the implied volatility of the current price (bid or offer) may give you some measure of the fairness of the quoted price (if there is no perceived change in future volatility). What such a comparison will do is to give you a measure of the degree to which the current market's perception of future volatility has changed over the course of the trading day. So, specific to your question, you do not want to use an annualised measure. The best you can do is compare the implied volatility in the current price to the implied volatility of the previous day's settlement price while at the same time making a subjective judgement about how you see volatility changing in the future and how this has been reflected in the current price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daeb68910f70be984d51f671d0e67cae", "text": "The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adcbfc7ed50dda109ff508fe92da26ec", "text": "I'm honestly not well versed on healthcare ETFs. I have seen a few mentioned here and there on various threads around /r/investing and /r/wallstreetbets. My pro-Vanguard bias would lead me to looking most closely at VHT, but there seem to be [many other great looking picks](http://etfdb.com/type/sector/healthcare/) out there such as IBB, XLV, and IHI, among others. Right now I am generally concerned about valuations in technology and perhaps simply in general, but we'll see what happens. As I craft my goals for the near and long term, I would favor the defense industry ($ITA), technology (broad definition -- $VGT, $V, $AAPL, $BABA, various video games companies short term), healthcare (above), some specific international exposure (such as $EWGS), and boring stuff ($VOO, $VTI).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b7485e54f14bda079a021ac233b0c0d", "text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b", "text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.", "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&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&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&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": "afb5b4fbf1539e64167c69d8252f847b", "text": "Use a compound interest calculator to project the difference with ETFs in the S&P 500 (or the asset mix of your choosing), and subtract the expected pension amount. If the difference is positive, or around around even, I would do it to avoid the risk of company failure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7", "text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9", "text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?", "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": "2d55477a28427a28e14b8662c097c8ef", "text": "\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96aefa42c9120412e688d4e47ccabd3c", "text": "Street name is not what you think it is in the question. The broker is the owner in street name. There is no external secondary owner information. I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC.", "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&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&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": "cf723311d8d79a9f1e5b3e058a725bf1", "text": "Yes, what they said. You don't mention where you are on the totem pole. Are you reporting to the top dog, or are you 3 levels down? Not to be a downer, but until you know your cut, I'd not get too excited either way. 1000 shares/options of a LinkedIn turned to nearly $100K. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but not enough to retire, nor bother contacting a lawyer. The details of the equity should be spelled out clearly, nothing against Lawyers, but it's likely to be wasted money.", "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": "1f993f0cda37e0b1db3d20ec22f0ad75", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd1c51438c9aaf8e14aa77f9887fc3c7", "text": "This is just a shot in the dark but it could be intermarket data. If the stock is interlisted and traded on another market exchange that day then the Yahoo Finance data feed might have picked up the data from another market. You'd have to ask Yahoo to explain and they'd have to check their data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efce0491704a8e58e2bad654003dc996", "text": "Yes, I'd say you do. This is similar to reporting a brokerage account. Also, don't forget the requirements for form 8938.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c", "text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5", "text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d55d842e506aca1a0bab26aac7e5778a", "text": "Cross-listing shouldn't be an issue, as the sole reason stocks would behave differently on different exchanges would be due to exchange rates (sure, noise and time differences, but weekly data should take care most of that). If you're using MSCI World index figures in USD, you either have to convert stocks denominated in other currencies to USD at their historical fx rates, or just save a lot of time and use data from stocks listed in the US, when available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c2b2a9f92dbd2597c91a80da0909ef1", "text": "The procedure entails developing an account in addition to every with the search engines like Google through which local business listing is going to be claimed. This account is dedicated to you personally and used only for the company’s listings. You retain possession of this account, and administration from the accounts could be fully utilized in you at the finish of anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9840638aad3cf96aee25bd53d600d8d4", "text": "\"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar. In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible. In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held \"\"in street name\"\". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408", "text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0ed9ac0958f77d0eea4a9b671ece20a", "text": "You can contact the french agency for stock regulation and ask them : http://www.amf-france.org/", "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": "b6cdc4bc1296bfa5ec4aed75305e96a2", "text": "It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2923139f67bc06512a813a131913ad4a", "text": "\"The simplest answer would be: Because they can. Why charge less for something if people will pay more? One example are Apple products. While there the price number is not exactly the same in EUR and USD, they are so close that, effectively, the EUR product is more expensive. Many things go into a price. There might be reasons for products in the EU being more expensive to produce or distribute. Or people in the EU might be in general more willing to pay more for a certain product. In that case, a company would forgo profits when they offered it cheaper. Also, prices are relative. Is the USD price the \"\"correct\"\" one and the exchange rate should dictate what the EUR price is? Or vice versa?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e59a63d10df5a7548a3f8ee00b16ce53", "text": "It's mostly VAT (value added tax or sales tax). For example an US IPad is $499 without tax, and a German IPad is EUR 499 including 17% VAT. The base price is actually only EUR 417. In addition to that, cost of business is a little higher in Europe because of tax structures and because smaller countries cause higher overheads.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67fe623c1bd326a05f16c1beb2e452db", "text": "In the EU prices on consumer-focussed sites* are quoted inclusive of VAT. In the USA prices are quoted exclusive of sales tax. Consumer pricing is usually driven at least partly by psychological concerns. Some pricepoints are more appealing to certain types of buyers than others. The Euro vs dollar exchange rate has fluctuated a bit over the years but it's generally averaged somewhere around 1.2 dollars per Euro over the last decade. VAT has varied around 15%-20% in most cases. Put these things together and the same headline price points are generally appropriate in both the USA and the Eurozone. OTOH the Brisith pound has been worth substantially more than the dollar or the Euro. So it makes sense to have a lower headline price in the UK. * B2B focussed sites often quote prices exclusive of VAT, you need to be aware of this when comparing prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d1b4070ae8f86c7d172defb39f9cd1a7", "text": "Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8947354d06ec1aace23b62b1302de55f", "text": "You're assuming here that anything that is difficult to obtain will be highly desired. For me, value is largely determined by the buyer. Even if it takes the same effort to get 20 bushels of apples and a nugget of gold, if the majority of people find a nugget of gold to be worth 100 bushels, that will be the value of gold. Conversely, lets say there is an element buried deep in the earth that has no use whatsoever. Even if it takes the effort of 10 nuggets of gold, because nobody has any use for it, its value will be zero. Even though there is high effort to procure. I hope that clarifies your question of the exchange rate. It is determined by how much each party values the goods involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "942a3f398e3d98d215c135e3a7153627", "text": "\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47b1fe6ea3938c0a89565d110d6fdfd8", "text": "You probably can get away with only updating the exchange rates once a day and specify that any prices quoted in units other than your home currency are estimates only. If you're planning to accept more than one currency as payment, I'd (a) see about whatever regulations there are for doing so, and (b) build in a nice spread for yourself if you're allowed to, since it is a service you're providing to your customers. If you Google currency converter the first result is just that: a currency converter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f7f2fda621530a629a225dc7f9ae2dd", "text": "Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.", "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": "9f133cca76377676a8232941e01f0ef7", "text": "This would effectively be currency speculation, betting that the Pound will be stronger vs. the Euro in November (or whenever) than it is today. This would be a profitable transaction if the exchange fees are less than the swing between the two. In my (very limited) experience, exchange fees are going to be at least a few percent, and she's going to have to do the exchange twice if she wants to turn current Euros into Pounds and back into Euros later; that's at least a 6% hit. I'd recommend against this. While it's quite plausible for the two currencies to move more than 6% against each other in that time, it's also quite possible for them to move the other way, causing her a large loss. The unfortunate thing about large, heavily traded things like GBP/EUR is that you're very unlikely to have some information that the big traders don't. While lots of people think that the pound is going to become stronger, just as many people think that the Euro is going to be stronger. These two camps are constantly bidding against each other, resulting in the 1.15 Pounds/Euro exchange rate as of this writing. The current price and current direction that the line is moving in no way tells you what it's going to do next.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162", "text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc53d9760e6493e8be78fe83c5079c90", "text": "The company says it's out of their control - it isn't. All they have to do is to INSTRUCT HSBC to send a certain amount of GBP, and then HSBC MUST send GBP. Obviously the bank doesn't like that because they make money through the conversion. That's not your problem. When told to send GBP, they must send GBP. Depending on what your relationship with that company is, you lost money because they didn't send the GBP. At the very least, they sent you four percent less in Euros than they should have sent you. So send them a bill for the difference. It's unfortunate that your bank charged for the conversion Euro to GBP, but fact is that less than the agreed amount arrived at your bank, and that's the responsibility of the sender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a563599240df32f6f33488f04190e1bb", "text": "Yes. When the currency of a country appreciates, it benefits some groups and disadvantages others. In particular, exporters suffer when a currency increases in value relative to other countries. In a country like the US, where exporters are small relative to the economy, this isn't a big deal. In germany, where exporters make up a big part of the economy, a currency increasing in value leads to large numbers of layoffs and other negative net effects to the economy.", "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": "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": "9a3a4bfb1af5d188ee9d565c1c846036", "text": "\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bd9e0b185fddf1f7f858aa463ab5619", "text": "The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c", "text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d387abbe56d3e50279201bf9aaa15371", "text": "\"With no written agreement in place, the \"\"right\"\" rate is whatever both parties can agree to. I could argue that I could have invested the money in S&P 500 index funds and made about 9% annually over the last 15 years and the 15,000 would have been over 40,000. The \"\"fair\"\" rate would be whatever rate of return could have been expected from whatever your father would have done with the money otherwise - keep it in a bank account, pay off debt, invest in the market, start a business, whatever. Your father has the benefit of hindsight to know what would have been a good use of the funds over 15 years. Using the rate of inflation results in effectively a zero-percent loan in real interest terms (meaning no profit was made, just accounting for the time value of money). Both parties need to either decide on an amount or equivalent rate, or decide if squeezing the other for a few thousand Euros is worth the strife.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d77db73e41b716cd2cce4a56d9ae8161", "text": "What you are positioning as a loan was not a loan at all. Your father bought something to be delivered in the future. Your aunt does not want to deliver it, so she should buy it back at whatever the current market value is. What is the price that your dad believes her share of the inheritance is currently worth? Is that based on actual appraisals and some sort of objective audit? If so, your aunt doesn't have much of a case. If not, then she could seek an audit to bolster her bargaining position. How much did your aunt benefit from having a place to live for the last 15 years. Was that benefit greater than some larger amount of money at an unknown future date? That's probably why she sold her inheritance 15 years ago. Now that the inheritance looks like it is going to be available soon, she wants to trade back after having enjoyed the use of your father's money. That might be okay, but simply paying back the original sum with inflation, but without interest, doesn't seem fair to your father. She may not be able to afford to give any more than what she is offering, in which case, she might want to consider offering the original sum now and some portion of her inheritance as interest on that original sum. I'm not taking sides in this one. If it were one of my siblings, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and take a smaller amount back if I felt that the lesson was learned (and if I felt that he/she would make wise use of my gift to him/her). I have no idea what your father's current economic situation is, nor am I aware of any other baggage that might influence his feelings about his sister. It's as likely as not that money isn't really what is bothering him, in which case, the amount she repays may have little to do with bridging the divide between them. You might need to ask different questions in the Interpersonal Skills stack if you want to help your father feel better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea56c922a812f0329b4a95d41ca33caa", "text": "There's often a legal basis to answer this question. For instance, Austria (guessing from your profile) currently uses a 4% Statutory interest rate. You'll need to dig up not just the actual but also the historical rates. Note that you'll want the non-commercial interest rate - some countries differentiate between loans to businesses and loans to individuals.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "627106dadcfefbdbeeb2566b3d5e4485", "text": "When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d28ff1b1e9a532740365b921dbc14909", "text": "That's a very interesting article, and something that I hadn't considered, but I have a hard time believing that the value of the dollar is really 1/4 of what it was just 15 years ago. Ounces of gold don't appreciate in ounces of gold, and you can't buy anything with them. Like it or now, gold isn't used as a currency, so its price at this time is primarily dictated by how much more that people expect its value to rise in USD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "542f6a65b035a8b2d4c2355dadc9390b", "text": "There are two ways to measure the value of money in the past. 1) As Victor mentioned there are inflation statistics covering the last 100 or so years that value the currency against an ever-changing basket of goods. This is sufficient when measuring general inflation over the period of the hundred years where there is data. This is how it was measured in your example. 2) For older time periods or where a value comparison is required between specific items (particularly where these were not in the basket of goods used for the inflation calculation) Historical records of the price of comparable goods can be used. This is in effect the same as mark to market valuations for illiquid financial instruments and requires poring through records to find the price of either a comparable basket of goods to one that would be used for inflation calculations today or a comparable set of items. An example of this is finding the value of a particular type of house (say a terraced house in London) in the 19th Century compared to the same house today by finding records of how much comparable houses would sell for, on average, then and now. This second measure is also used where the country in question didn't or doesn't keep reliable inflation statistics which may well be true of Colombia in the 90s. This means that there is a chance that this way of estimating Escobar's wealth in today's terms may have also been used. Another notable reason to use this methodology is that (unless you are using exchange rates in purchasing power parity terms) the value of money held in different currencies is different. This is even true today as the value of $1 in INR in India is likely to be higher than the value of a dollar in the US in terms of what you can buy. Using this methodology allows for a more accurate comparison in values where different countries and currencies are involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa74b4578872b3d54c02ec58e7f4d678", "text": "If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d921092e3b0e3462860f56a4e2f7cfd9", "text": "Yahoo! Finance would list it as 3.30 for the 20 year corporate AAA bonds. This is using the criteria from the Wikipedia link you stated in the initial question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1138e355b81a7a8ac2647aa46a98c76", "text": "It is interesting to consider the Netherlands which is part of the Euro zone. Germany uses 1 and 2 cent coins. Adjacent is the Netherlands where items remain priced to the cent but cash totals are rounded to the nearest 5c so 1 and 2c coins are out of circulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3", "text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "433e605acecb28e473e6135fbf242b06", "text": "The biggest factor is: Are you really going to invest the difference? It is easy to say you will now, but unless you have a ton of discipline or some form of automatic investing, that is a hard thing to do in practice. Another consideration is that the 30 year loan will usually cost you more over the life of the loan because of the length of it. Another option is to take the 30 year loan and pay at the rate you would with a 15. Then you get the benefit of paying it down quickly, but have the flexibility to only make smaller than usual payments in any month where you have a financial emergency and need the extra cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824dc239750bc8278f98d5476e7deee", "text": "\"I can just get the exact same mortgage in a 30-year version, and just pay it off within whatever year window I choose This is an assumption which often does not come true. The \"\"advantage\"\" of a 15 year mortgage is you hopefully never decide you want more toys or to go out to eat and suddenly your mortgage takes 30 years to pay off instead of 15. Plus, if I get a 30-year mortgage then I have a cushion in case I run into major financial hardship. That same cushion can turn into other luxuries. Maybe you want new furniture. \"\"I won't pay extra on the mortgage this year.\"\" Suddenly it's year 22. This is not a 100% guarantee by any means, but it is something which is relatively likely. Yet everywhere I look I see people online going on about how unwise 30-year mortgages are I read a lot of online financial resources and almost never see this claim.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "f6f28d0b03bb284042ce431e4bb76506", "text": "You are trying to predict the future currency fluctuations that can't be predicted. If you know for sure you are moving, convert it directly into Euros in near future rather than take a complicated route.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce9b56fbd86948cfdf13e02213f63317", "text": "A correction always happens every 10-12 years, but the GDP hasn't been moved because of housing this time, which had never happened before either. So just a typical correction could happen, like in 1998, and 1988 and the decades before that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b44fd18a6297f0e17b5868585b8a96", "text": "You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eb31c0f654543057ea12f777a712330", "text": "At indexmundi, they have some historical data which you can grab from their charts: It only has a price on a monthly basis (at least for the 25 year chart). It has a number of things, like barley, oranges, crude oil, aluminum, beef, etc. I grabbed the data for 25 years of banana prices and here's an excerpt (in dollars per metric ton): That page did not appear to have historical prices for gold, though.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2a9ccb93058b7630955699cdcd88ddbd", "text": "This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy: I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen: Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this.", "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": "bdc388ae50829bf75031a59e103a78b4", "text": "There are several possible effects: There isn't much you could do about it. If you had enough money to try to hedge by buying foreign securities, in theory you could be happy no matter what your dollar did: if it goes up, you have pain or gain from local effects (depending on whether imports or exports have a bigger effect on your life) and that is offset by your investment having gain or pain. Ditto if it goes down. In reality the amount you might have to invest to get to this point is probably not a realistic amount for an ordinary person to invest outside their country. I own a Canadian company that bills a number of US clients and I buy very little from the US (I'm big on local food, for example, and very frugal on the consumer-goods front.) When the Canadian dollar falls, I effectively get a raise, so I'm happy while all around me are wringing their hands.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d542d9c12741601382214e526bfc569", "text": "One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a83c8e47219effc49996c8f7f32aec0b", "text": "I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4940a56597daa47fcd9f02797c22a8e", "text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "772ad3f443b7368025491502fdf43dfe", "text": "Fed Reserve is not responsible for devaluing the dollar, but it is run by secrecy. Should be nationalized and in control of by government. A nation has to have the power over its money printing, it can't let some private large bankers control all its central bank stock shares and the money policies of a nation. the dollar goes down during boom times, but goes up during crisis and recession. the devaluing was more due to too much debt in circulation acting as money supply. when that debt exploded in 2008 US dollar shot to the moon. M2 increased not in relations to M1 before the 2008 crisis. That proves debt/money lent out by commercial private banks was the cause for inflation, not FED base money printing. on youtube you should watch some bill still videos, ellen brown, steve keen, harry s dent, richard wolff. Do not fall for any retarded mises asstrian von hoodwink libertarian gold bug videos telling you how great gold standard or gold exchange program is. That's just plain slavery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeef25d59c01d9382647746f9d7cada", "text": "\"I would make this a comment but I am not allowed apparently. Unless your continent blows up, you'll never lost all your money. Google \"\"EUR USD\"\" if you want news stories or graphs on this topic. If you're rooting for your 10k USD (but not your neighbors), you want that graph to trend downward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e695a5a44676fed9b45586d7c613fde", "text": "\"Yes, but it depends on WHICH other currencies the country's money is depreciating against, and to what extent. This is why China \"\"pegging\"\" the renminbi/yuan to the dollar is an issue, it means Chinese goods do NOT become more expensive in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2c16b059b978b071a59d1a5e39ef67", "text": "\"Need to be very careful with this kind of discussion. The dollar has been a \"\"fraud\"\" since it went off of the gold standard. If you get people thinking too much about their currency, then could start a panic. Should really just leave it alone. -- Especially with the increasing US debt; and Trump saying something earlier about defaulting on it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc3014e53ce66c2041906e87955ae2e", "text": "The ruble was, is and will be very unstable because of unstable political situation in Russia and the economy strongly dependent of the export of raw resources. What you can do? I assume, you want to minimize risk. The best way to achieve that is to make your savings in some stable currency. Euro and Swiss Franc are currently very stable currencies, so storing your surpluses in them is a very good option if you want to keep your money safe. To prevent political risk, you should keep your money in countries with stable political regime, which are unlikely to 'nationalize' the savings of the citizens in predictable future. As for your existing savings in rubles, it's a hard deal. I assume, as the web developer, you have a plenty of money, which have lost a lot of value. If you convert them to euro or francs, you will preserver the current value (after the loss). You'll safe them agaist ruble falling down, but in case the ruble will return to previous value, you'll loose. Keeping savings in instable currencies is, however, speculation, like investing in gold etc. So if you can mentally accept the loss and want to sleep good, convert them. You have also option to invest in properties, for example buy an extra appartment. It's a good way to deal with financial surplus in Europe in US, however you should be aware, in Russland it's connected with the political risk. The real estates can be confiscated in any moment by the state and you can't run away with it (the savings can also be confiscated, but there's a fair chance you'll manage to rescue them if you act quickly).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d4694b1a2b6366c8246417079ec2e9f", "text": "\"Let's say there's a product worth $10 in July and the inflation rate in August is 10%. Will it then cost $11 in August? Yes. That's basically what inflation means. However. The \"\"monthly\"\" inflation numbers you typically see are generally a year over year inflation rate on that month. Meaning August 2017 inflation is 10% that means inflation was 10% since last July 2016, not since July 2017. At the micro consumer level, inflation is very very very vague. Some sectors of the economy will inflate faster than the general inflation rate, others will be slower or even deflate. Sometimes a price increase comes with a value increase so it's not really inflation. And lastly, month over month inflation isn't something you will feel. Inflation is measured on the whole economy, but actual prices move in steps. A pear today might cost $1, and a pear in five years might cost $1.10. That's 10% over 5 years or about 2% per year but the actual price change might have been as abrupt as yesterday a pear was $1 and now it's $1.10. All of the prices of pears over all of the country won't be the same. Inflation is a measure of everything in the economy roughly blended together to come up with a general value for the loss in purchasing power of a currency and is applicable over long periods. A USD inflation rate of 3% does not mean the pear you spent $1 on today will necessarily cost $1.03 next year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cbf93cdf03f9730462f5dd3d3dd2d7", "text": "\"Just to get the ball rolling, here's an answer: it won't affect you in the slightest. The pound happened to be tumbling anyway. (If you read \"\"in the papers\"\" that Brexit is \"\"making the pound fall\"\", that's as valuable as anything else you've ever read in the papers.) Currencies go up and down drastically all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. We by fluke once bought a house in Australia when that currency was very low; over the next couple years the currency basically doubled (I mean per the USD) and we happened to sell it; we made a 1/2 million measured in USD. Just a fluke. I've had the opposite happen on other occasions over the decades. But... Currency changes mean absolutely nothing if you're in that country. The example from (2) was only relevant because we happened to be moving in and out of Aus. My various Australian friends didn't even notice that their dollar went from .5 to 1 in terms of USD (how could it matter to them?) All sorts of things drastically affect the general economy of a given country. (Indeed, note that a falling currency is often seen as a very good thing for a given nation's economy: conspiracy theorists in the states are forever complaining that ) Nobody has the slightest clue if \"\"Brexit\"\" will be good bad or indifferent for the UK. Anything could happen. It could be the beginning of an incredible period of growth for the UK (after all, why does Brussels not want your country to leave - goodwill?) and your house could triple in value in a year. Or, your house price could tumble to half in a year. Nobody has the slightest clue, whatsoever about the effects on the \"\"economy\"\" of a country going forward, of various inputs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d", "text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3", "text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4301601c9481bbdd7831edb0ce599574", "text": "A VAT means that the cost of goods in your country just went up by that VAT percentage. This would mostly effect how the poor and middle class spend their money which currently is very selective. Additional economy slow downs can generate another recession. That's what I understand, anyway. The numbers in this numbers game are very very important and is difficult to generate in theoretics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3492cf4cc9b19031d374d516784f", "text": "You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d50c7fdfce08325fca77e8f189c16e91", "text": "It's important to note that the US is also the country that taxes its expats when they live abroad, and forces foreign banks to disclose assets of US citizens. Americans are literally the property of their government. America is a tax farm and its citizens can't leave the farm. Wherever you go, you are owned. And that now appears to be true of your Bitcoin as well. Even if you spend 50 years outside the USA, your masters want a piece of what you earn. Land of the Free.", "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": "876b598f5ea78adf444348f7f7188616", "text": "You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.", "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": "1113a65ceab6020675408bde08a986cd", "text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a094c5a11277c21d3ef4c7708548e105", "text": "\"Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11. Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too. It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else \"\"borrow\"\" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30c72cf08aece2888aa325bdcd8d2538", "text": "\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0454cb97484b5aee38694219afe541", "text": "\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d75ded6258a5b4aa5a7f8490256dc8a", "text": "You need to use one of each, so a single order wouldn't cover this: The stop-loss order could be placed to handle triggering a sell market order if the stock trades at $95 or lower. If you want, you could use a stop-limit order if you have an exit price in mind should the stock price drop to $95 though that requires setting a price for the stop to execute and then another price for the sell order to execute. The limit sell order could be placed to handle triggering a sell if the stock rises above $105. On the bright side, once either is done the other could be canceled as it isn't applicable anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be443f0165b1dd058028841d3e5487d1", "text": "The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b04f790ab2bc20075ad02ef249001c1e", "text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83cd105788a910eaa841c6a840d0b346", "text": "The same as when you are buying a car. If a dealer quotes 10k and you quote 8k. 8k is the buy price and 10k is the sell price. Somebody might quote 8.5k and another dealer might quote 9.5k. The the new price that you see on your screen is 8.5k(Best buy price) and 9.5k(Best sell price). When the buyer and seller agree to an amount, the car(In your case stock) is traded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00ead6e1e4accaf77de20977700dc957", "text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e74a1a9ec705c4d4de2ada7d145c20a", "text": "\"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (\"\"OJ\"\") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This \"\"zeros his position\"\" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of \"\"Trading Places\"\" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the \"\"Eddie Murphy rule\"\", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32", "text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "787dff3b420a2556d3121dccca8468f6", "text": "\"In a perfect world of random stock returns (with a drift) there is no reason to \"\"take profit\"\" by exiting a position because there is no reason to think price appreciation will be followed by decline. In our imperfect world, there are many rules of thumb that occasionally work but if any one of them works consistently over a long period of time, everyone starts to practice that rule and then it stops working. Therefore, there are no such rules of thumb that work reliably and consistently over long periods of time and are expected to continue doing so. Finding such a rule is and always has been a moving target. The rational, consistently sensible reasons to sell a stock are: These rules are very different from my interpretation of the \"\"walk with your chips\"\" behavior mentioned in your question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd055035118e9368579e888c579bdf7", "text": "It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3cd3ed069075fd5d61b92de73b50627", "text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ab8e9a63d418731aaea495a05d0aa0", "text": "\"The only general rule is \"\"If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly.\"\" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "42e71f7a8b01aa528beaa8246c665bf8", "text": "Twitter is planning to go public on NYSE. You'll be able to start trading once the stock is listed for trading, which would be the day of the IPO. Note that since you're trading on the secondary market, you won't be able to buy at the IPO prices, whatever the time is. You're buying from someone who bought at IPO price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26bc7f91b8e382b3c90f5c302e9fee61", "text": "\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \"\"closed\"\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357", "text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de4f9aa53884a7706ec901cd7a5d604", "text": "\"http://finance.yahoo.com/stock-alerts/stock-watch/add/?.done=/stock-alerts/ You will have to have a yahoo account. If you want to provide an alternative delivery email address, visit the URL above. Click \"\"Stocks Watch\"\", enter ticker(s) and price(s) at which you want alerts, then at the bottom select the \"\"email\"\" radio button. If your preferred email address is not listed, click the \"\"Add an email address\"\" link and follow the instructions. I don't know what their limit is, but I currently have three addresses set up -- two to non-@yahoo addresses -- and it works fine.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3", "text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6525fabe5b4facfd715c4d176e28d7c", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9823767759e3d43146cfab231ab5ed36", "text": "The first moment of trading usually occurs even later than that. It may take a few hours to balance the current buy/sell orders and open the stock. Watch CNBC when a hot IPO is about to open and you'll see the process in real time. If you miss it, look at a one day Yahoo chart to see when the open occurred.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3ce52de9c86c161b7c8be72e8139b4", "text": "Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "684939ebba51de25344e1ff641d21134", "text": "\"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6614c80a1bfd3d9994c53dd2e02b2ba", "text": "Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe41bd844ccdd880ae9b1f59abe82487", "text": "\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04", "text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "991a7bff6d74666b8e4d83d5eb0c32d6", "text": "Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.", "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": "05df9270e1259daad20959e2a75da64e", "text": "I will be messaging you on [**2017-10-06 17:57:23 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2017-10-06 17:57:23 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/7354iz/roku_ipo_stock_price_closes_up_67_on_first_day_of/dnolw5y) [**3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Reminder&amp;message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/7354iz/roku_ipo_stock_price_closes_up_67_on_first_day_of/dnolw5y]%0A%0ARemindMe! 1 week) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Delete Comment&amp;message=Delete! dnolwn7) _____ |[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=Reminder&amp;message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&amp;subject=List Of Reminders&amp;message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&amp;subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/) |-|-|-|-|-|-|", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ad78c252c10c6b6a1ea91d8e2332a20", "text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91fb41385d3ed83338b90b32b5f44787", "text": "I don't know that I can answer the question fully, but 2 points. The percent that represent capital gains certainly can't exceed 100. Did you mean 50% but the 500% is a typo? More important, funds held in retirement accounts have no issue with this, Cap Gains are meaningless within tax deferred accounts. I don't know the ratio of stocks held in these accounts vs outside, just that the 2011 year end total retirement account worth was $17 trillion. (That's 12 zeros) This strikes me as a high ratio, although more numbers digging is in order.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "97d48afb79e4ae56b8d2b14a65b44ce4", "text": "There is a large market where notes/bills/bonds are traded, so yes you can sell them later. However, if interest rates go up, the value of any bond that you want to sell goes down, because you now have to compete with what someone can get on a new issue, so you need to 'discount' the principal value of your bond in order for someone to want to buy it instead of a new bond that has a higher interest rate. The reverse applies if interest rates fall (although it's hard to get much lower than they are now). So someone wanting to make money in bonds due to interest rate changes, generally wants to buy at higher interest rates, and then sell their bonds after rates have gone down. See my answer in this question for more detail Why does interest rate go up when bond price goes down? To answer 'is that good' the answer depends on perspective:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25fd54e7984e8a5af60b1f25acdb4347", "text": "Look at this question here. In my answer there, I put a link to an Investopedia article about the bond prices. Keep in mind that speculating over a short term period is pretty dangerous, even with the Treasury notes, and the prices may be affected temporary but greatly by the ordeals like the latest Republican shenanigans in Washington.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78", "text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "72a2701b1f51d5da47456b2cbe3a98a0", "text": "I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b52a0df063c339dc6fc9d7e15fb0bea1", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976", "text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b69527e2707e44cc701c57fc239b10a", "text": "\"It's a form of debt issued by the United States Treasury. As the name implies, a 10-year note is held for 10 years (after which you get the face value in cash), and it pays interest twice per year. It's being used in the calculator to stand for a readily available, medium-term, nearly risk-free investment, as a means of \"\"discounting\"\" the value that the company gains. The explanation for why the discounting is done can be found on the page you linked. As a Canadian you could use the yield of comparable Canadian treasury securities as quoted by Bank of Canada (which seem to have had the bottom fall out since the new year), although I don't suppose American notes would be hard for a Canadian investor to come by, so if you wanted to be conservative you could use the US figure as long as it's higher.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ba3ab29e2ff7613adc6491c8165e6fc", "text": "\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \"\"bank capital\"\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98b361fce03eb6c8c2291c71e74e3e5e", "text": "Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply &amp; demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34355b7409a90fc5e25f780b12d07c66", "text": "The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba304fbf8b1580d1a4cef5833694200f", "text": "You've got the right idea, except that the stated interest rate is normalized for a 1-year investment. Hence if you buy a 4-week bill, you're getting something closer to 4/52 of what you've computed in your question. More precisely, the Treasury uses a 360 day year for these calculations, so you multiply the stated rate by (number of days until maturity)/360 to get the actual rate of return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fda38f2836f6ffc43aba5c23742f35a5", "text": "\"The simple answer is that, even though mortgages can go for 10, 15, 20 and 30 year terms in the U.S., they're typically backed by bonds sold to investors that mature in 10 years, which is the standard term for most bonds. These bonds, in the open market, are compared by investors with the 10-year Treasury note, which is the gold standard for low-risk investment; the U.S. Government has a solid history of always paying its bills (though this reputation is being tested in recent years with fights over the debt ceiling and government budgets). The savvy investor, therefore, knows that he or she can make at least the yield from the 10-year T-note in that time frame, with virtually zero risk. Anything else on the market is seen as being a higher risk, and so investors demand higher yields (by making lower bids, forcing the issuer to issue more bonds to get the money it needs up front). Mortgage-backed securities are usually in the next tier above T-debt in terms of risk; when backed by prime-rate mortgages they're typically AAA-rated, making them available to \"\"institutional investors\"\" like banks, mutual funds, etc. This forms a balancing act; mortgage-backed securities issuers typically can't get the yield of a T-note, because no matter how low their risk, T-debt is lower (because one bank doesn't have the power to tax the entire U.S. population). But, they're almost as good because they're still very stable, low-risk debt. This bond price, and the resulting yield, is in turn the baseline for a long-term loan by the bank to an individual. The bank, watching the market and its other bond packages, knows what it can get for a package of bonds backed by your mortgage (and others with similar credit scores). It will therefore take this number, add a couple of percentage points to make some money for itself and its stockholders (how much the bank can add is tacitly controlled by other market forces; you're allowed to shop around for the lowest rate you can get, which limits any one bank's ability to jack up rates), and this is the rate you see advertised and - hopefully - what shows up on your paperwork after you apply.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b3e7446fd01d40d7513b4640655a667", "text": "The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable. In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4b0148f3cdecb6df7692dbccf3fa8ad", "text": "An expiration 2 years out will have Sqr(2) (yes the square root of 2!) times the premium of the 1 year expiration. So if the option a year out sell for $1.00, two is only $1.41. And if the stock trades for $10, but the strike is $12, why aren't you just waiting for expiration to write the next one?", "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": "a96d28f1b6a65b9706820b297edc30f9", "text": "Yes, you are. When someone is bankrupt their assets are being sold to satisfy the creditors. Your note is an asset, and will be sold. You'll be making payments to the entity that buys it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6", "text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2ee64c477f71e46524f285924da4742c", "text": "Dow Jones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average NASDAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100 (scroll down) S&P Tricky. From what I can find, you need to be in Harvard Business School, a member of CRSP, or have access to Bloomberg's databases. S&P did have the info available years ago, but no longer that I can find.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede", "text": "I tried direct indexing the S&amp;P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f1eb22c5ceb023258ce59d1b6a06a9f", "text": "\"The S&P 500 index is maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices, a division of McGraw Hill Financial. Changes to the index are made periodically, as needed. For Facebook, you'll find it mentioned in this December 11, 2013 press release (PDF). Quote: New York, NY, December 11 , 2013 – S&P Dow Jones Indices will make the following changes to the S&P 100, S&P 500, MidCap 400 and S&P SmallCap 600 indices after the close of trading on Friday, December 20: You can find out more about the S&P 500 index eligibility criteria from the S&P U.S. Indices methodology document (PDF). See pages 5 and 6: Market Capitalization - [...] Liquidity - [...] Domicile - [...] Public Float - [...] Sector Classification - [...] Financial Viability - Usually measured as four consecutive quarters of positive as reported earnings. [...] Treatment of IPOs - Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index. Eligible Securities - [...] [...] Changes to the U.S. indices other than the TMIX are made as needed, with no annual or semi-annual reconstitution. [...] LabCorp may have a smaller market cap than Facebook, but Facebook didn't meet all of the eligibility criteria – for instance, see the above note about \"\"Treatment of IPOs\"\" – until recently. Note also that \"\"Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months\"\" implies somebody at S&P makes a decision as to the exact when. As such, I would say, no, there is no \"\"simple rule or formula\"\", just the methodology above as applied by the decision-makers at S&P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4809d86d4acb03d754450eb270c48fa1", "text": "For video games the S&amp;P home entertainment software index will probably work. For airlines there's the S&amp;P airlines index but that may not work well for private jets. You should browse different S&amp;P indicies based on GICS classifications or any other indicies you may find and then download their returns for the past few years and run a regression analysis on excel. Find the correlation between the indicies and the stock you're looking at then select the index with the highest correlation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcdc4709a26a75edae1f33af053105b", "text": "This didn't answer his question. Also, while I agree with you that the Dow is meaningless (and your explanation why). In the investment industry, we don't only focus on the S&amp;P Index.. Many have a specific benchmark they aim to outperform that matches their investment strategy (i.e. Russell Mid Cap Value, Russell 3000, etc.).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97f41387c3e0e3a356c3818c5c8d2845", "text": "\"No. I glanced through the article you linked to. It's quite lengthy, but not compelling. I'd not lose any sleep over this. Others with far better credentials are making the opposite claim, that life is good and the Dow on its way to 20,000. Back to this guy - StansberryResearch.com Reviews – Legit or Scam? offers a look at this company. Stansberry calls his company \"\"one of the largest and most recognized investment research companies in the world\"\" but references to his firm call it a clearinghouse for other authors newsletters. Why would you give any more credence to his ranting than any other extreme prognostications? I suppose if I told you I never heard of him it would be pretty meaningless. I certainly haven't heard of every financial writer. But if he's one of the most recognized, you'd think I might have. Note, I've edited since seeing I was downvoted. But to the question author, you might want to summarize your questions in the future instead of linking to a video or 13,000 word rant. (when you click to shut the video, the text is available.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6360e82fca576b1e4ac690aac5a37829", "text": "\"I looked at data from Sept 2010 to present: Standard deviation is what shows the spread shape of returns over time, and it meanS that about 2/3 of the time, AAPL return was within +/- 1.65 higher/lower than the daily average return which was .21 %. Not sure where to go with this except to suggest that in fact, AAPL is more volatile than the S&P and even another random tech company. With time, I'd probably come up with a list of stock more volatile. I know that when I look at a list of stocks I track on Yahoo, there are always a few that are just as volatile on a given day. Excel makes the above analysis easy to do for a given stock, and it's actually an interesting exercise, at least for me. Disclaimer - the shape of stock returns is not a bell curve, and STdev is just a best fit. Edit - given more time to tinker on excel, it would be interesting to see how the stock's volatility tracked over the years, did it increase or does it feel that way due to the high price? A $20 swing on a $600 stock is the same as a $2 swing on a $60 stock, yet \"\"up $20\"\" sounds huge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cf023e3f5de9b66e48a1b8b43787c0", "text": "There are the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. I believe the reports used to create them are released to the public. This could be a good place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325", "text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12c634220fc3e2dc46fc247bc28c4557", "text": "I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e7480b3706084b79a9015750488260b", "text": "\"MD-Tech's answer is correct. Let me only point out that there are easier ways to invest in the DJIA index without having to buy individual stocks. You can buy a mutual fund or ETF that will track the index and your return will be almost identical to the performance of the underlying index. It's \"\"almost\"\" identical because the fund will take a small management fee, you will have to pay annual taxes on capital gains (if you hold the investment in a taxable account), and because the fund has to actually invest in the underlying stocks, there will be small differences due to rounding and timing of the fund's trades. You also ask: Assuming that I calculated those numbers correctly, is this gain approximately better, equal to, or worse than an average investment for that timespan? While people argue about the numbers, index funds tend to do better than average (depends on what you call \"\"average\"\", of course). They do better than most actively managed funds, too. And since they have low management fees, index funds are often considered to be an important part of a long-term investment portfolio because they require very little activity on your part other than buying and holding.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "f8e7ca107e1a1d1f35f319f46ddcfa25", "text": "www.sedar.com is the official site that provides access to most public securities documents and information filed by public companies and investment funds with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) in the SEDAR filing system. Now, I'm guessing - I think the doc is MDA - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. At least this is what appears listed for many companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b028ff834b19af321fd99ce9009ac14", "text": "AAPL will not drop out of NASDAQ100 tomorrow. From your own quote: The fund and the index are rebalanced quarterly and reconstituted annually", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c", "text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb67ec3740545851f323621075d7a83c", "text": "There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "adc58170ab394a0f0d40e7c03f1b1f41", "text": "Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion", "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": "a78b7ee9b4d58c459bbaa55b79537705", "text": "To me it looks pretty good (10% per year is a pretty good return). Lagging behind the indexes is normal, it is hard to beat the indexes over a long period of time, the longer the period - the lesser the chances to succeed. However, half a year is a relatively short period of time, and you should check your investments a little bit deeper. I'm assuming you're not invested in one thing, so you should check per investment, how it is performing. If you have funds - check each fund against the relevant index for that fund, if you have stocks - check against the relevant industry indexes, etc. Also, check the fees you pay to each fund and the plan, they come out of your pocket, lowering the return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b1f115f7e7215d23a3d4e254c803a6e", "text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86", "text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3", "text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&amp;A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f4b7578a2b59e3af58c13213b7da6b", "text": "I'll give you my quick and dirty way to value a company: A quick and dirty valuation could be: equity + 10 times profit. This quick way protects you from investing in companies in debt, or losing money. To go more in-depth you need to assess future profit, etc. I recommend the book from Mary Buffett about Warren Buffett's investing style.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa89096b34cb48b4c6033c8c5a319377", "text": "DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a298afce83af0d8164f0633e8051c1", "text": "If the shares rise in value 50% over the next few years, you will have the same return that I would see if I bought 100 or 1000 shares. The only issue with a small purchase is that even a $5 commission is a high percent. But the rest of the math is the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e144e276962b576070defb6e72a120e", "text": "If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7f81b996bf1dc02be851206dfcc3183", "text": "\"Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price. Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the \"\"average\"\" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7b44d6fb01103d972318fdd1aa04c52", "text": "\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d917c533e1f467fdc043cc786853554", "text": "The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal *as long as it works out* so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "365f3ac9b47ee04cd35b18cf28973dd1", "text": "\"If someone is guaranteeing X%, then clearly you can borrow money for less than X% (otherwise his claim wouldn't be remotely impressive). So why not do that if his 4% is guaranteed? :) Anyway, my answer would be that beating the market as a whole is a \"\"decent\"\" rate of return. I've always used the S&P 500 as a benchmark but you can use other indices or funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9abd734c052c72e2797dde2201b88db1", "text": "\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "efe70ea839b8b2502a417b3f0cdc2d5f", "text": "\"Yes and no. First off, commodity prices reflect the cost of a good about 3 steps back in the retail supply chain; the agreed-upon price for the raw foodstuff between farmers/ranchers and manufacturers. Your grocer may carry bags of whole grain wheat, but that's certainly not all he carries that contains it. Same for corn, rice and other staple grains, as well as for fruits and vegetables, herbs (yes, you can buy basil by the ton on the CME), meats, various sugars, etc. So, a long-term sustained change in prices of a commodity foodstuff will eventually affect the real cost to you to buy things they're made from. However, in the short term, the retail supply chain will generally act as a buffer between these prices and the ones you see on the store shelf. Consumers don't like price increases, especially of necessities like food. When food costs go up, consumers can and will very quickly change their spending habits, buying cheaper options to get their needed calories. That makes manufacturers nervous; consumers not buying their product is a worse scenario than consumers buying their product at a reduced gain or even at a loss. So, manufacturers, and suppliers and retailers, will all absorb as much as they can of the cost of a commodities increase before beginning to pass it on to consumers. On the flip side, while consumers like price drops, they don't notice them as much as price increases. So, the supply chain will also absorb a fall in commodity prices by resisting price reductions in the consumer goods, as long as they can get away with it (which is usually longer than the price reduction actually lasts). The net effect is that processed food prices typically follow the gentle upward climb of long-term inflation, and only rarely do you see drastic price increases or decreases. Where this model breaks down a little bit is in highly perishable foodstuffs, especially seasonal or \"\"wild-managed\"\" foods; fruits and vegetables, seafood, etc. The limited time in which the stuff can be sold makes the process of getting a fish out of the ocean and a fruit off the tree and into your grocery store much more market-driven; the producers, suppliers and grocers are all in constant contact over what's available and how much they can get for what price. The prices therefore are typically a lower markup (unlike highly processed grain-based foods, there's not much added value to be marked up between the apple farmer picking the fruit and the grocer putting it on display), but also much more volatile; if there's a bumper crop of fruit, the farmer has to unload it all or it goes to waste, while similarly if an early freeze decimated the apple crop, the suppliers can't just get some of last year's bumper crop out of storage; they fight with everyone else for what little made it to market. Farmers will sometimes intentionally let excess crop spoil in order to maintain a minimum price for what they sell (the rest can at least be composted and used for fertilizer, saving them some money on maintenance), but there's no silver bullet for a shortage. This is why a lot of these foods, especially seafood, are considered luxury items; they're not stable enough for everyone to get as much as they want whenever they want, unlike staple grains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af8936f2118d658d9f57e27f1caf14bd", "text": "\"No. Some grocery stores may discount specific products based on inventory to drive sales using \"\"loss leaders\"\" where the product is intentionally priced as a loss for the business. While commodity futures may impact some prices, I'm not sure one can easily extract the changes solely due to futures shifts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c95a3f96955c131806f5b56e19a89780", "text": "That is true. Since commodities are basically a futures contract, their actual price is not reflected in grocery stores. It is more of a supply and demand issue with your grocer.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "371e8f2e82be060229ed7fa33316d364", "text": "The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d7340d23e5f571dc750165921c2e144", "text": "It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c", "text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09ebbb0d5e20d22affce6d9fd51e8ae3", "text": "We need to be careful what we are talking about here. Inflation on a economy-level scale at an expected rate will not change consumer habits because the price increase is manageable. You have to realize that prices are not increasing in isolation: wages will have to rise along too. High inflation that is expected will increase consumption of durable goods, as people attempt to 'get rid of their money' before the price changes on them. A good example of this was post-WWI germany, where hyperinflation was so bad that offices began to pay their employees twice daily, so they could adjust their wages, and so that their employees could go out during lunch and after work to buy something with the money before the price changed on them. Unexpected inflation may cause a temporary dip in spending until wages adjust, however consumers still need to buy, so they will likely push for higher wages, leading to consumption to stay about level. There is another effect to inflation as well: People who have savings will have their savings eroded over time if the economy is inflationary. To preserve their wealth, they will invest it. In a deflationary environment, money will increase in value simply by being hoarded, so they will be less willing to invest it. Deflation also increases the cost of interest on a loan, while inflation decreases it. So the overall effect is for an increase in spending under inflation, and a decrease under deflation. The person you have quoted is quite wrong. Price increases in a particular sector will cause consumer spending to decrease but this is a bad example, as it is not inflation, but rather a supply/demand problem of a particular consumer good. They are applying a micro-economic model (price increases of a single good) to a macroeconomic problem (price increases in the entire economy) when price increases at a global scale have the opposite effects. A good theoretical test of this is: what would happen if everyone in the US suddenly had twice as much money? (Ignoring international trade, of course). The answer: prices will double, and nothing else will change. The reason is, people will have more money to spend, but will require more money for their services, so in the end it all cancels out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56a2c9dd60a135526a28f93fea2b388f", "text": "An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfe88486c116475b6d9a7b924daff410", "text": "\"Inflation as defined in the general, has many impacts at a personal level. For example, you say that the reduction in the price of oil has no impact on you. That's absolutely not true, unless you're a hermit living off of the land. Every box or can or jar of food you buy off the shelf of the grocery store has the price of oil baked into it, because it had to get there somehow. High fuel costs for trucks mean increased costs to put food on shelves, which mean increased prices for that food. Even tobacco prices can affect you, because they affect what other people are spending. Demand is always a significant factor in prices, particularly retail prices, and if people are spending more money on tobacco, they're probably spending less on other things - either buying less snacks, for example, or buying cheaper brands of those snacks. So the price of Doritos may drop a bit (or not rise), for example. General inflation also tends to drive raises, particularly in industries with relatively small performance ties to raises. If inflation is 3%, wages need to raise 3% or so in order to keep up, on average; even if your personal cost-of-living went up 0%, or 5%, or 10%, the default wage inflation will be closer to that of the national average. Any raise less than national average is effectively a pay cut (which is one reason why inflation is needed in a healthy economy). So your company probably has a cost-of-living raise everyone gets that's a bit less than inflation, and then good performers get a bump up to a bit more than inflation. You can read more on this topic for a more in-depth explanation. Finally, inflation rates tend to be major factors in stock market movement. Inflation that is too high, or too low, can lead to higher volatility; inflation that is \"\"right\"\" can lead to higher stability. An economy that has consistently \"\"right\"\" inflation (around 2-3% typically) will tend to have more stable stock market in general, and thus more reliable returns from that market. There are many other factors that lead to stock markets rising and falling, but inflation is one very relevant one, particularly if it's not in the \"\"right\"\" zone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdeff7d8ea58b2abda76c4781c153ec6", "text": "I'm not an economics expert or anything, but what seems strange to me is the randomising part. Everything else looks fine but why does it randomly select the next item for price increase, wouldn't this depend on supply/demand and the players in the game?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fcbd17cb5f0333d87d3fda0447cda8", "text": "I do appreciate the explanation. I was being a bit facetious about hotdogs in that I don't buy the SAME hotdog over and over again. But seriously, I still don't see why rising house prices shouldn't count towards inflation. 100s of thousands of homes are bought per day affecting millions of consumers per day. The price fluctuations in housing absolutely affect the spending habits of consumers in every other facet of the economy. Or put another way, what if in some wacky world everyone stopped buying virtually all other items except bare essentials because they were all focused on buying homes. A huge construction industry boom ensues. Millions are working building homes. Home prices skyrocket 1000% and become like 80% of GDP. Is inflation dead? Or has it just shifted to another asset under our typical inflation radar? Living costs are still very much affected by housing in this scenario. They're just affected by millions of separate people at once each day. To say that because one person doesn't repeat buy housing too often, means policy regarding inflation should be ignorant of housing prices, just isn't right. That they are bought and sold by millions of consumers each month is just as important to the economy as food, energy, or any other major facet of our economy. In any event, inflation might be lagging, but it sure as hell isn't lagging when it comes to housing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3809349303c40ac4957d1925bf846e8", "text": "Bren's comment is right on the mark. The typical solution is to divide all bills by 5, and for special items, the person buying it just marks his name that it's not community food. Your attempt at a granularity level this detailed is admirable, but produces false results. What happens when I claim to be a zero percent milk drinker but when someone gives me cookies, I have a glass of milk? The effort to get true accuracy will cost far more in time spent than the results are worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f395ab2911cf726f0f95ad459c5c8e8", "text": "Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b0d59e3f864aab765fbc03b515de78f", "text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae17995aa49a297c3f165878d3b6b62e", "text": "That is an assumption that sales would not go down if prices go up. If you lose even .5% of sales due to an increase of 17 cents, you're not going to cover your $15 wage. Fast food is an incredibly competitive space, if you don't think 17 cents is significant, go look at how many places still offer a dollar/99 cent menu.", "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": "03cb743babeee57970ba9c8594eaaa52", "text": "I am very interested to see what Market Basket's sales look like in another two months. Consumers tend to do their grocery shopping out of habit, and all a competitor (manufacturer or retailer)needs is one chance to show them a better option. Market Basket has lost many customers for good, but will this story lead to even more new customers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c", "text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c50f4befa2ff841763a4a23ab2ef8cd2", "text": "Not directly. But companies benefit in various ways from a higher stock price. One way a high stock price can hurt a company is that many companies do share buybacks when the price is too high. Economically speaking, a company should only buy back shares when those shares are undervalued. But, management may have incentives to do buybacks at irrationally high prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.", "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": "c947ee0c62bb10677e480cca9de92e11", "text": "When a stock price rises, the company's assets are worth more. This doesn't mean it gets more cash directly, but it can liquidate (= sell) some of its stocks for a higher return than before.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d5d4da8a355958c565267ad5a2005aa7", "text": "\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \"\"compound\"\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \"\"compound growth\"\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\"", "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": "8e0d392ac4a2a2360895cf6d0ba3cf28", "text": "You can, in theory, have the stock price go up without any trading actually occurring. It depends on how the price is quoted. The stock price is not always quoted as the last price someone paid for it. It can also be quoted as the ask price, which is the price a seller is willing to sell at, and the price youd pay if you bought at market. If I am a seller, I can raise the asking price at any time. And if there are no other sellers, or at least none that are selling lower than me, it would look like the price is going up. Because it is, it now costs more to buy it. But no trading has actually occurred.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cf789155692e1686257b5c57e274203", "text": "It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63f1724f4c0a0b3f2e97ed990bac83fe", "text": "There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfaacbb67aed2a42ee2d7f7e859edd28", "text": "Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "412836d6430943a185c4ae3bbff78774", "text": "Inflation will damage the value of those cash reserves. This will harm the company's value. (Other factors may or may not be harmed. or helped.) Borrowing costs may be related to inflation, but they're not directly tied. Inflation happens, in fact, when it's easy to borrow money and more money gets created than new economic activity. (Also, if a competitor really needs to raise money, they can also issue new equity. It's not all borrowing.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d87dc6a132fb23f070de78d1b19daad8", "text": "When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point.", "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": "c067f60aa6afa4f6133377c0af24b9eb", "text": "Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price. Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "fefbfd0d0f389f36234a8dfca1e4479a", "text": "Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cd4ebc007e5e4e0e0ffeb192ed4576b", "text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55d08939178c1f1437907ebceeb60bb3", "text": "The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d09fd123da8fdc790fbee54b044ccc79", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8a581c0063de09e5ee99a240460a4e7", "text": "I rather like The Ascent of Money, by Niall Ferguson. This comes in several formats. There's a video version, a written version (ISBN-13: 978-1594201929), and an audio version. This book covers the history of financial instruments. It covers the rise of money, the history of bonds and stocks, insurance and hedge funds, real-estate, and the spread of finance across the world. It is a great introduction to finance, though its focus is very definitely on the history. It does not cover more advanced topics, and will not leave you with any sort of financial plan, but it's a great way to get a broad overview and historical understanding of money and markets. I strongly recommend both the video and the written or audio version.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f0cb1b299c8902d05de659c56af9285", "text": "\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \"\"banknote\"\" frequently called a \"\"share\"\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \"\"units\"\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5454e160157a86cd1775242c0efdbbb4", "text": "Your understanding of the stock market is absolutely correct theoretically. However there is a lot more to it. A stock on a given day is effected by a lot of factors. These factors could really be anything. For example, if you are buying a stock in an agricultural company and there was no rainfall this year, there is a big chance that your stock will lose value. There is also a chance that a war breaks out tomorrow and due to all the government spending on the war, the economy collapses and effects the prices of stocks. Why does this happen? This happens because bad rainfall or war can get people to lose confidence in a stock market. On the other hand GDP growth and low unemployment rates can make people think positive and increase the demand in a stock driving the prices up. The main factor in the stock market is sentiment(How people perceive certain news). This causes a stock to rise or fall even before the event actually happens. (For example:- Weather pundits predicted good rainfall for next year. That news is already known to people, so if the weather pundit was correct, it might not drive the prices up. However, if the rainfall was way better than people expected it to be it would drive the price up and vice versa. These are just examples at a basic level. There are a lot of other factors which determine the price of the stock. The best way to look at it(In my personal opinion) is the way Warren Buffet puts it, i.e. look at the stock as a business and see the potential growth over a long period of time. There will be unexpected events, but in the long run, the business must be profitable. There are various ways to value a company such as Price to earnings ratios, PEG ratios, discounted cash flows and you can also create your own. See what works best for you and record your success/failure ratio before you actually put money in. Good Luck,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8accfe15c696a664fe3605ddf9390c52", "text": "Most likely economics then. What I'm looking to gain is an understanding of how the market works so that I may take that knowledge and use it to make investments, buy stocks, or possibly start a business. I have a very large amount of time between my studies for my classes and I think it would be a waste to not learn these tools (to give you a reason for my interest in this).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee77ed54bd1eff8264dd44dd0dfa186a", "text": "Perhaps someone has an investment objective different than following the market. If one is investing in stocks with an intent on getting dividend income then there may be other options that make more sense than owning the whole market. Secondly, there is Slice and Dice where one may try to find a more optimal investment idea by using a combination of indices and so one may choose to invest 25% into each of large-cap value, large-cap growth, small-cap value and small-cap growth with an intent to pick up benefits that have been seen since 1927 looking at Fama and French's work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a", "text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4c6716db876ed27f5199f7148298af8", "text": "\"Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! \"\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it\"\"-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be \"\"worth\"\" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ce1510db724098278202fb69a59c5a2", "text": "people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock.", "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": "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": "f34458f083eae68c8949828e68620000", "text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96085ed5e9764b4c6311102d80047902", "text": "Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting worse news.", "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": "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": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7", "text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da", "text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.", "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": "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": "c3292817005d13deadb2e1a31d52a00c", "text": "\"If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of \"\"sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher.\"\" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16ffb29fce791fb8d2fac3d9c6fefb74", "text": "On Black Friday, 1929,the market fell from over 350 to just above 200. If you were following your plan then you would buy in at about 200. But look what the market did for two years after Black Friday. It went down to about 50. You would have lost around 75% of your capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b120328813deca9d848fd3cb63a1698", "text": "\"The technical term for it is \"\"timing the market\"\" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are \"\"buying low\"\" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b23555ecfcac576eb1a4e750938e28", "text": "Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f467cbe27dbe7e76823d12fcb70efe9", "text": "The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bd438a6f4f107d2889bb2052ca1a935", "text": "As an easy way to answer... look at an index, let's say the S&P 500. Look at the price this last October, and predict where it will move in November... easy right? It already happened, and you have the benefit of hindsight. The move looks like such a consistent, obvious continuation of the previous up and down pattern. It looks predictable, like you could have guessed that. Now, look at today's price, and predict where it will go next month. Not so easy now? The problem is, every point you're at, all the time, looks like a possible inflection point or turning point. If you're following an uptrend, you may think it'll continue, but you may also think that it zigged so far up already, that now it's ready for a zag down where you'll buy. So you wait... and it keeps rising, and you kick yourself for missing out. Next time, you see another uptrend and resolve to buy it regardless, thinking now it'll keep going, but it turns down the second you buy it, and keeps dropping. You kick yourself again. The market is amazing at doing this to you every time. In real time, every wiggle in the price looks simultaneously like a trend that could continue, and like a trend that has moved far enough and is ready to reverse. And more likely you'll guess the wrong one. The ONLY way with some little hope of succeeding is to study study study, and find and learn trading rules with just over 50/50 chances (like buying when a moving average is touched within an uptrend as an example, and setting a stop loss at -1%, and a sell limit at +2% or something), and then never ever deviate from that strategy, because your only hope is in the consistency of statistics and odds over time. You'll get many -1% losses, and hopefully enough 2% gains to compensate the losses, plus some profit. OR, to make it easier, just buy in on a dip, and hold and hold and collect dividends, and be content to match the market without effort.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "bf07ec9e09b72c3b44f4c116f1caed05", "text": "Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d1925c040a2118fae45a14044546e1", "text": "\"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called \"\"day traders\"\" or \"\"short-term investors\"\" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function: they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors. Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys. You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395e4a466026a14fb6261c61f25969b5", "text": "\"A lot of people have already explained that your assumptions are the issue, but I'll throw in my 2¢. There are a lot of people who do the opposite of long term investing. It's called high frequency trading. I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more info, but very basically, high frequency traders use programs to determine which stocks to buy and which ones to sell. An example program might be \"\"buy if the stock is increasing and sell if I've held it more than 1 second.\"\"\"", "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": "c2ae3e850c9a05b457725c0e854dd8f8", "text": "The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e0ee716deb67cfc9ca4aec7a8b19f16", "text": "There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171", "text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f38781d51f018d03d48fa9ad598f6afa", "text": "And more than that it would encourage people to invest in companies for the long term, allowing Executives and CEO's and such the breathing space to make a tough decision that's bad in the short term but good in the long term... Rather than hiring a psychopath CEO that's only trying to boost short term stock value for his own bonus/salary", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9195bb2a2faa4f1aa9f86cdf0eb07809", "text": "If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%: A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns. This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations: Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator: This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5688786e1cd8f4bc730141bd83392ef3", "text": "One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2946b37fe124978cc75eb71e8f0a2c12", "text": "\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d1400c8b9ac12d954f60d4ec289914", "text": "Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8", "text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5", "text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df23c140202eec107b9a1e27a3e56147", "text": "This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading. Consider this event from 2010: Chart Source Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes. It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events. For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance. You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom. The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money. Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in? The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains. By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bab6ea73a159b162acf0efe1a8be6b24", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"", "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": "ab0ef2d08b8155091a2bdd9b7a105c42", "text": "It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years. So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdccbd5c576bbbfa192d1788df6e45a", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eba55b8b3ae2afd8cc8c689c49f5463", "text": "\"More perspective on whether buying the stock (\"\"going long\"\") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a \"\"non-thin\"\" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the \"\"investors\"\" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f573cc1a292826d1bce978f3d56e90e9", "text": "\"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand. In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods. We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand. Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury. If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes \"\"ban\"\" inflation by fixing prices. Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently. The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a \"\"correct\"\" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called \"\"Inflation targetting\"\" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption. With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas. Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity. If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all. Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices. It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism. Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c21cdd06b9477dc251795891cc4072e1", "text": "\"Basically, in any financial system that features fractional reserve banking, the monetary supply expands during times of prosperity. Stable, low inflation of 2-4% keeps capital available while keeping the value of money stable. It also discourages hoarding of wealth. Banks aren't vaults. They take deposits and make an explicit promise to repay the depositor on demand. Since most depositors don't need to withdraw money regularly, the lend out the money you deposited and maintain a reserve sufficient to meet daily cash needs. When times are good, banks lend to people and businesses who need capital, who in turn do things that add value to the overall economy. When times are bad, people and businesses either cannot get capital or pay more for it, which reduces the number of times that money changes hands and has a negative impact on the wider economy. People who are trying to sell you commodities or who have a naive view of how the economy actually works decry the current monetary system and throw around scary words like \"\"fiat currency\"\" and \"\"inflation is theft\"\". What these people don't realize is that before the present system, where the value of money is based on promises to repay, the gold and silver backed systems also experienced inflation. With gold/silver based money, inflation was driven by discoveries of gold and silver deposits\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "315c115a101fd22f8e85ab9353b3178d", "text": "\"Inflation, like trade deficits or surpluses, have winners and losers in an economy. Clear losers are people who are on a fixed income, as they often have a fixed income and a prices keep on going up, meaning they can afford less. Numerous articles on the internet discuss the inflation of the 1970s, here are Google's results. I'm not so sure that governments want \"\"some inflation\"\" as much as they desperately want to avoid deflation. Deflation means that the price for today's product, like a car, will decrease in price tomorrow (or a month from now) which creates a powerful incentive for people to put off a purchase until later, which brings consumer demand down in a country's economy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75dd423db9fa528737a4fe446df58da4", "text": "\"Although there are some good points made here as to the cause of inflation (mostly related to supply and demand), azcoastal does head in a different direction, one which I myself was going to take. Let me give a different angle, however. Another cause of inflation is the printing of money by the government (not simply replacing old money with new, but adding to the total money in circulation). If the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation (for the sake of argument and easy math), the value of all money decreases by a factor of 2. That's inflation, and the way G. Edward Griffin in The Creature From Jekyll Island puts it, it's really tantamount to a hidden tax. In a nutshell, the federal government wants to buy some cool stuff like new tanks or planes, or they want to give a bunch of food stamps to poor people, or they want to fly their private jets around, but they don't have enough money from taxes. So, they print money and spend it and buy their stuff. Because they've just increased the money in circulation, however, money loses its value. For example, your savings has dropped in value by half, despite the fact that the same number of dollars is in your savings account. This is just a way the government can tax you without taxing you. They buy stuff and you now have less money (i.e., your retirement is worth less) and you don't even know you just got taxed. Makes me sick that we let our \"\"leaders\"\" get away with this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82c5c06d4f9b16f922b7813e5e0ba120", "text": "Inflation is what happens, it is not good or bad in and of itself. But consider the following. In a thriving economy with low unemployment, people are buying, buying, buying. People are not saving for later, they are buying now. Industry is also making purchases. Now. From economics 101: high demand for goods/services leads to relative scarcity leading to higher prices. Inflation tends to be one byproduct of a thriving economy. Governments want the thriving economy that brings inflation with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba326d329c8e239ec41ea6590f2d3269", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign. There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur. I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe. Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items. Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b4e6745bb53021059877c09c744beb4", "text": "\"In general the consensus is that a small amount of inflation (usually 1.5-2% per year) is desirable. That is why the Federal Reserve sets its inflation target in that range. The reasons why are quite complex though. One reason is \"\"wage stickiness\"\" - ie., the observed phenomenon that employers don't like to cut wages. Having a small rate of inflation means that when wages are steady in nominal terms, they are actually falling in real terms. This gives employers more flexibility.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "038cc37e389042cc197373214ff6003f", "text": "Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Increases in consumer prices follow from inflation. It's not the same as inflation. Some inflation is necessary for a growing economy. If your gross national product is only $1,000, then you can get away with having less money than if your gross national product is $1 trillion. Inflation beyond this, though, is used to allow governments to live beyond their means. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise. There is truth in what azcoastal says about this kind of inflation. It's theft. Governments like inflation because it allows them to pay off their debts with cheaper money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa118ec88d6ba97d72957cf867b37be7", "text": "If there's no inflation (or alternately there's deflation) people would tend to sit on money and wait for the prices to drop. This in pretty bad for pricier stuff like real estate/housing industry where a few percent can make a big difference. For a growing economy a small inflation is good as people would go out and buy new stuff when they want it knowing they will not get a better deal if they wait a year or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8624a478d3b506cdf049b07052759cf7", "text": "\"Inflation is a bad thing. It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time. This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries. But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour! That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is \"\"a long period of time\"\"? That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is \"\"a long time\"\". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century. This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems. Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53f31679e3888eada41157f5cbe307b5", "text": "Inflation is theft! It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle. Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high. This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "03a4b24c6aa6c38203ae620e6cd57088", "text": "Good points. I'd like to add some more: 6. Automation is deflationary 7. Low birth rate is deflationary 8. Declining educational level is deflationary 9. Migration of uneducated people is deflationary 10. Declining EROI is deflationary The printing press only inflates the valuation of assets, causing the inequality to rise. For people who do not have assets, life becomes more and more unaffordable. Redistribution of wealth cannot solve this problem, as the financial markets require a growing money base. Otherwise, Hyperinflation would be an inevitable consequence. Economic decline is merciless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b61eb81f67a953cfb6e04afe443616a9", "text": "Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f41628a42fd424dfa5ff0a80e13edf5", "text": "You can't really avoid inflation. As the population grows, the amount of money needed will grow as well (because the people will grow up and go to work and earn money, and someone has to create it to pay them). One of the definitions of inflation is increasing amount of money. Increasing amount of money causes devaluation (for example, if instead of 1000 dollars we now have 2000 dollars in circulation, because the population tripled in the last 50 years, while in Russia the population remained the same and they have the same 1000 rubles as they had 50 years ago - 1 ruble will no longer cost 1 dollar, but rather 2, i.e.: prices rise). This is very simplified of course, and there are a lot of causes and triggers for inflation. Inflation, when controlled and within certain limits is necessary for growth, as mentioned, but when uncontrolled and very high it causes a lot of damage, and that's what troubles people about inflation, not its mere existence. As to bringing the prices down- the prices don't go down, the gallon of gas will not go back to $0.25. It's just the buying power of the money goes down, because of inflation. You could buy a gallon of gas for 0.25 50 years ago, but you had to work for 1/2 hour to earn these 0.25. Now you have to pay $4, but if you still need to work for 1/2 hour for that, then the price didn't rise, effectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b973d796d5ecad6f9f3d29421ce941", "text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "511d0076eb13439460e7ae3d17d7bec1", "text": "\"Inflation means that the more money you create, the less it has value. To that I say, \"\"Meh.\"\" A funnier way of gaining wealth, which is the ultimate goal to stealing currency, would be to gain a great deal of money (through robbery or other means) then attempt to trigger a deflationary spiral while sitting on the cash. Sure it might be difficult, but I'm pretty sure the key is jacking up Fed interest rates and blowing up money printers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5118f81051f23c2de558ebb01684b73", "text": "\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd2abbe8153ffbff95970ca5c3d394d", "text": "The reason is governments print extra money to cause inflation (hopefully reasonable) so that people don't just sit comfortably but do something to make money work. Thus inflation is an artificial measure which leads to money value gradually decreasing and causing people invest money in one way or another to beat inflation or maybe even gain some more money. Printing money is super cheap unlike producing any kind of commodity and that makes money different from commodities - commodities have their inherent value, but money has only nominal value, it's an artificial government-controlled product.", "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": "2eb573161fb05e0424582e3be1785ea3", "text": "\"There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't \"\"print\"\" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "154d7f5c99eb49598a76e1db747b22f3", "text": "I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed. You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money. If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c213852bbd84536d7d530f5163e37c72", "text": "Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c315f7f93fe5809761da6de1f2350eab", "text": "u just dont understand how money works. u think u do, but u dont. u dont even understand the problem. the govt printed over 7 trillion, where is the hyperinflation? explain to me what caused the inflation from 2001 to 2007 up until the bubble collapse and financial collapse of 2008. and don't say fed 'money printing' coz it ain't true. don't say fractional reserve multiplier effect, coz that ain't true either. see u don't even know. if u keep arguing with me ur gonna get embarassed. if u ask nicely, maybe i'll tell u.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "663112925ee04cb3694812a81d60eeba", "text": "\"I don't think QE \"\"masks\"\" inflation. The upward wage pressures to create inflation simply aren't there, and for that reason an increase in the monetary base is non-inflationary (as we've seen). Only during the exit, if the banks flood the economy with their excess reserves, could we see higher-than-moderate inflation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "595c37029f889dceb75e71aab18e1658", "text": "The problem is that at full employment demand in the market is supposed to increase as people spend money. More money in the market means more inflation, but because wages have not risen even at full unemployment inflation is not rising. If it is not rising the problem is that it might really be deflating, deflation is the enemy of the rich as the price for goods, services and assets decline.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d2b6fbe48101ebb881deb9bc368cca2", "text": "Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4f7411e3e119a2b3298493ebef4d8a66", "text": "It has got to do with market perceptions and expectation and the perceived future prospects of the company. Usually the expectation of a company's results are already priced into the share price, so if the results deviate from these expectations, the share price can move up or down respectfully. For example, many times a company's share price may be beaten down for increasing profits by 20% above the previous year when the expectation was that it would increase profits by 30%. Other times a company's share price may rise sharply for making a 20% loss when the expectation was that it would make a 30% loss. Then there is also a company's prospects for future growth and performance. A company may be heading into trouble, so even though they made a $100M profit this year, the outlook for the company may be bleak. This could cause the share price to drop accordingly. Conversely, a company may have made a loss of $100M but its is turning a corner after reducing costs and restructuring. This can be seen as a positive for the future causing the share price to rise. Also, a company making $100M in profits would not put that all into the bank. It may pay dividends with some, it may put some more towards growing the business, and it might keep some cash available in case cash-flows fluctuate during the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e4095d42a193b554e513a451e5dc91b", "text": "The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a16300f64ef8baf4afd50d1d171a5a7", "text": "You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.", "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": "6f1cba64a1aaef1f8201f6318f01a3f0", "text": "\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \"\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\"\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \"\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\"\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e5c9eb81b42cf4a2833b2511ac66fe", "text": "\"In a rational market, the market caps (total value of all shares of the company) should be determined by the expected future profits of the company, plus the book value (that is the value of all assets that the company holds). The share price is then calculated as market caps divided by number of shares - a company worth a billion dollar could have a million shares at $1000 each or a billion shares at $1 each or anything in between. When profits drop, every investor has to re-think what the expected future profits of the company are. If all the investors say \"\"I thought this company would make a billion profit in the next ten years, but based on the drop in profits I changed my mind and I think they will only make 500 million\"\", then the share price drops. On the other hand, if profits dropped because of some predictable event, then that drop was already priced into the share price. If the profits dropped less than expected, the share price might even go up. You can see the opposite effect: Share price might be very high because everyone expects huge growth in profits over the next ten years. If profits grow less than expected, the share price will drop. Share price depends on predicted future profits, not on profits today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb", "text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "34c9f459817d83133cb77ce55d4178e9", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3935b99b72731729fc7d8b53d7836adb", "text": "Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d213c2f48872e4a3c6b651071f4167cf", "text": "It's a big dance. Share price will go up or down based on a number of factors, many that have nothing to do with the company operations. If a CEO fixates on quarterly returns, that will cause long-term investors to want that CEO replaced, or to sell their shares. Unless a CEO is weak and can't explain the business to shareholders he shouldn't need to focus on quarterlies. If he does then shareholders short and long will take advantage of the bump in price to exit, thus depressing the valuation. Then new money comes in after CEO is replaced.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9443fc7e998ed1319ccfc06ef4babaf3", "text": "\"The question mentions a trailing stop. A trailing stop is a type of stop loss order. It allows you to protect your profit on the stock, while \"\"keeping you in the stock\"\". A trailing stop is specified as a percentage of market price e.g. you might want to set a trailing stop at 5%, or 10% below the market price. A trailing stop goes up along with the market price, but if the market price drops it doesn't move down too. The idea is that it is there to \"\"catch\"\" your profit, if the market suddenly moves quickly against you. There is a nice explanation of how that works in the section titled Trailing Stops here. (The URL for the page, \"\"Tailing Stops\"\" is misleading, and a typo, I suspect.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "084b6a7c6c93bb138202603fa9676eff", "text": "You are misunderstanding what makes the price of a stock go up and down. Every time you sell a share of a stock, there is someone else that buys the stock. So it is not accurate to say that stock prices go down when large amounts of the stock are sold, and up when large amounts of the stock are bought. Every day, the amount of shares of a stock that are bought and sold are equal to each other, because in order to sell a share of stock, someone has to buy it. Let me try to explain what actually happens to the price of a stock when you want to sell it. Let's say that a particular stock is listed on the ticker at $100 a share currently. All this means is that the last transaction that took place was for $100; someone sold their share to a buyer for $100. Now let's say that you have a share of the stock you'd like to sell. You are hoping to get $100 for your share. There are 2 other people that also have a share that they want to sell. However, there is only 1 person that wants to buy a share of stock, and he only wants to pay $99 for a share. If none of you wants to sell lower than $100, then no shares get sold. But if one of you agrees to sell at $99, then the sale takes place. The ticker value of the stock is now $99 instead of $100. Now let's say that there are 3 new people that have decided they want to buy a share of the stock. They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100. Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100. This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought. In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up. To answer your question, if your selling of the stock had caused the price to go down, it means that you would have gotten less money for your stock than if it had not gone down. Likewise, if your buying the stock had caused it to go up, it just means that it would have cost you more to buy the stock. It is just as likely that you would lose money doing this, rather than gain money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b8b1af37a467e92fa7713c0d929db8", "text": "How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7feafa4a14f2b5f289e8239ddff4b1a", "text": "Share prices fall when dividends are paid out because the paid dividend (cash out) actually reduces the value of the company. Usually the share price falls by the amount of the dividend payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp", "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": "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": "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": "99d863578d26125199b3f9ac63a5bf4a", "text": "\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd055035118e9368579e888c579bdf7", "text": "It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f088dba0ac32effa798e86ebec2ba4", "text": "Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d701097909150781ae2cc681fe0c35b0", "text": "\"First off, IANAL. Secondly, most laws are different for humans and corporations. But, insider trading is \"\"trading on knowledge that isn't publicly available.\"\" If the trade was made after the order was made public knowledge, that would probably provide the fig leaf of legality.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "67a8f8a83db55a5a110890deeebbdcf3", "text": "\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790", "text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dca2e519c440ad97edc1473cbb806d5", "text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa7c09b4aff575996aba05e03ae5f23", "text": "Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works. For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices). Hope that helps.", "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": "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": "db4f592662f61d0769da885278c96784", "text": "An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec31ff25a842884336420f39e6b4a99", "text": "I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91cbe6463d6bee3a60a59449dc4aff85", "text": "Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then check their prices daily. With daily price swings of over 10% (both up and down) being a common occurrence, you'll quickly learn how high your risk tolerance really is. :) A lot of IT people believe that cryptocurrencies will stay. Whether Bitcoin or Ethereum will be among them is anyone's guess. Compare to the Dotcom boom, which will be Amazon.com and which will be Pets.com?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "114919b2d796acd6c72888553ba2b2f3", "text": "Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798", "text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01", "text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d", "text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804", "text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b54c9a163b57b74af7d24a687fc96af8", "text": "\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96", "text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a", "text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1885e147e142cd6a0fdf6862afa5b80a", "text": "\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3f52a375bc36ded7c59d6cf3dd77f3", "text": "Although I don't think you need to factor in risk tolerance to get the probabilities, I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will need to factor in risk tolerance in order to make a practical decision about what to do. In fact, I think that to make a practical decision you will need more than the specific probability you ask for you in the question; rather, you would like to see the complete probability distribution of possible outcomes. In other words, it's not enough to know that there is a 51% chance that investing will outperform paying down debt. You actually need to know much it outperforms when it does outperform, and how much it underperforms when it underperforms. As JoeTaxpayer's comment suggests, you might not choose to make an investment that had a 99% chance of outperforming debt payment by 1%, and a 1% chance of underperforming by 99%. I think it possible to address these questions by doing simulations. This can be done even with a spreadsheet, but more flexibly with simple programming. Essentially you can create some kind of probabilistic model of the various factors (e.g., chance that your investment will go up or down) and see what actually happens: how often you lose a lot of money, lose a little money, gain a little money, or gain a lot of money. Then based on that you can consult your inner spirit animal to decide whether the probability distribution of possible gains outweighs that of possible losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af", "text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0", "text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594", "text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034885719490c4aa45d6c1e091c10c41", "text": "\"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fed7947cf3797ff10394446994e2c9d", "text": "The most important thing to remember is that being VAT registered, you must add VAT to every bill, so every bill will be 20% higher. If the bill payer is a company, they don't care because they deduct the 20% VAT from their own VAT bill. If the bill payer is a private person, their cost of your services has just gone up by 20% and it is going to hurt your business. So the question is, what kind of customers do you have? But if your customers are companies, then the flat rate scheme mentioned above is very little work and puts a nice little amount of extra cash in your pocket (suitable if your bills are mostly for your work and not for parts that you buy for the customer and bill them for).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f28f50d44f6bb36c97ceb1f8fd233f50", "text": "You should not buy soley for the dividend. The price of BHP is going down for a reason. If you hold until the full years dividend is paid you will make 11% (which is $110 if you bought $1000 worth of shares), but if the share price keeps dropping, you might lose 50% on the stock. So you make $110 on dividends but lose $500 on stock price drop. A perfect way to lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4233f49ef04511ef2ae08cab80a2afc7", "text": "There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeba72256657916fd5a9d0e79bb538e", "text": "\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6b47a23a60f360667924d2df0875dc", "text": "BHP Billiton has room to answer doubters as commodities rout batters debt notes in part: There has been speculation that the company could cut its shareholder dividend, while Liberum Capital analyst Richard Knights has suggested BHP might look to raise as much as $US10 billion ($14.3 billion) in new equity capital. If the dividend is cut, you won't see 11% and the share price may well decline further. There is a possibility of big losses here given the change in the prices of the products the company sells. To add from another source The only reason BHP trades on a yield of more than 8% is because the market is pricing in a cut to the dividend. According to consensus earnings estimates for 2016 and 2017, earnings per share will be $0.86 and $1.27 respectively. Dividends per share forecasts are $1.83 and $1.81 respectively.", "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": "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": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a", "text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608", "text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5", "text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"", "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": "0d008a892deb44faa5fcc7a59cdb2cb0", "text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b02b98626fee0603c28741c38a3d1b7", "text": "I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5463efbd7bbd2ec1075a4e72ed4bbfa", "text": "\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5", "text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"", "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": "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": "5e78f2494d052c35cef96846a9158a3b", "text": "You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "565b9544c89d35295a9af661cc3a06fd", "text": "\"If you have someplace to put the money which you think will yield significantly better returns, by all means sell and buy that. On the other hand, if you think this stock is likely to recover its value, you might want to hold it, or even buy more as a \"\"contrarian\"\" investment. Buy low, sell high, as much as possible. And diversify. You need to make a judgement call about the odds. We can point out the implications, but in the end whether to sell, buy, hold or hedge is your decision. (This also suggests you need to sit down and draw up a strategy. Agonizing over every decision is not productive. If you have a plan, you make this sort of decision before you ever put money into the stock in the first place.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "69e391d3a97df557994cd37dac75471a", "text": "Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety. Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value. It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing. Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value. The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read: I would start to read the first two book first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6185b178bed99afd98ae1c4d60cc2cee", "text": "\"Fama-French would be a couple of names if you want to look at this from a value/growth dichotomy. A simplified form of this was to take the stocks with a lower Price/Book Value that would be the value stocks while the others would be the growth. The principle is that some of the beaten-down stocks will appreciate more than the growth stocks will. 6 Ways To Improve Your Portfolio Returns Today also makes note of the \"\"growth vs value\"\" split if you want another reference that way. Historically, growth has been more volatile and produced lower returns, though past performance isn't necessarily always going to hold as some people like to invest in what is known as a \"\"slice & dice\"\" portfolio where a portion in invested in each of 4 corners: Large-growth, large-value, small-growth, and small-value. Some may add in bonds, REITs, and foreign stocks but the idea is that in different years, different parts of the market will do better and this is a way to capture that in a sense.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f4d0b823ec45f1f14ee70df1183374", "text": "It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bfdc5b647b5f94ef5ffe18b4b174c9a", "text": "\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb", "text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a43792daa2607f4f44803d30544cc574", "text": "\"Thanks. This is super simplified as I said. It gets much deeper when you start looking at costs of capital, country risk premiums (for projects in emerging markets), \"\"risk free rate of return\"\" (putting cash in guaranteed returns such as a us treasury note), mutually exclusive projects, etc. But the basic concept is... what is the minimum required return on a project to justify choosing to pursue it. If you borrow money via loan at 10%, your required rate of return on whatever project you invest it in has to be at least that 10%. Otherwise you're better off just not doing anything.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696", "text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca0852fdce161b965d5715975eb9a33", "text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"", "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": "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": "3adfcbe31a6b9bb6731237d8769eecb4", "text": "For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de", "text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"", "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": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76c6225dc5f0d9e48a5430310a5a8e41", "text": "This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdcc2b65eb978ffd08c5dbe18108ebc4", "text": "Disclosure: I am not an agent. Yes you can negotiate a lower price if the seller doesn't have to pay a buyers' agent's commission, but you probably won't save the full commission, since the buyer will want to take some of those savings in exchange for the extra risks involved. Thinks about some of the things that buyers' agents do on your behalf: I expect even a good buyer's agent has some incentive for the sale price to be higher rather than lower, as their commission is greater with higher sales price. True, but their main incentive is to make a sale or they get nothing. Since their commission is relatively low, even a 10% increase in the offer only gives them a 0.3% increase in their commission. It usually isn't enough for them to encourage you to make a bad deal, which could hurt their reputation. Does the answer change depending on whether the seller is using an agent or not? Some FSBO sellers are more willing to work with non-agent buyers, but the same risks above apply. The bottom line is: you can buy a house without an agent, but you need to make sure that you can replace their expertise and time spent working for you, and that the savings are worth the additional work and risks.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8a7d5bb9f5b02c43dd51ea2a03fdac26", "text": "You appear to be thinking of option writers as if they were individuals with small, nondiversified, holdings and a particular view on what the underlying is going to do. This is not the best way to think about them. Option writers are typically large institutions with large portfolios and that provide services in all sorts of different areas. At the same time as they are writing calls on a particular stock, they are writing puts on it and options on other stocks. They are buying and selling the underlying and all kinds of different derivatives. They are not necessarily writing the option because they are expecting or hoping to benefit from a price move. It's just small part of their business. They write the option if the option price is good enough that they think they are selling it for very slightly more than it's worth. Asking why an option writer creates a call is like asking why a grocery store keeps buying groceries from their distributors. Don't they know the price of food may not always rise? Sure, but their business is selling the food for slightly more than they pay for it, not speculating on what will happen to its price. Most option writers are doing the same thing, except what they are buying and selling is sets of cash flows and risk. As a general rule, the business model of option writers is to profit from the few cents of spread or mispricing, not from aggregate changes in the price of the underlying. They should and often do maintain balanced portfolios so their option writing activities don't expose them to a lot of risk. Also note that there could be lots of reasons for writing options, even if you do have a particular view. For example, perhaps the option writer thinks volatility of the underlying will decrease. Writing a call could be part of an overall strategy that profits from this view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c5b5925153a18d5096370e6a655ef1d", "text": "\"Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing \"\"uncovered calls,\"\" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3cf1863509b8c42a3d70a5e28392a36", "text": "I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "325b30fb598f679f0d3dc954b0dbdfdf", "text": "I have an example of a trade I made some time ago. By entering the position as a covered call, I was out of pocket $5.10, and if the stock traded flat, i.e. closed at the same $7.10 16 months hence, I was up 39% or nearly 30%/yr. As compared to the stock holder, if the stock fell 28%, I'd still break even, vs his loss of 28%. Last, if the stock shot up, I'd get 7.50/5.10 or a 47% return, vs the shareholder who would need a price of $10.44 to reflect that return. Of course, a huge jump in the shares, say to $15, would benefit the option buyer, and I would have left money on the table. But this didn't happen. The stock was at $8 at expiration, and I got my 47% return. The option buyer got 50 cents for his $2 bet. Note, the $2 option price reflected a very high implied volatility.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4215d59595db6fef019e68352fc63517", "text": "\"This is a really bad idea. You are asking to be forced to pay for something at a time when you most likely NOT want to buy it. Why? There is no stability (much less any degree of predictability) to give up the right to control when and for how much you would be willing to own the S&P500. Just don't do it.....\"\"generate stable income\"\" and \"\"selling puts\"\" is an oxymoron. ===retired investment advisor\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7ecf7c5d091ee8984b5ed7a27e6fa4", "text": "So, child, your goal is to make money? This is usually achieved by selling goods (say, lemonade) at a price that exceeds their cost (say, sugar, water and, well, lemons). Options, at first, are very much same in that you can buy the right to engage in a specific future trade. You make money in this situation if the eventual returns from the scheduled trade cover the cost of purchasing the option. Otherwise you can simply opt out of the trade -- you purchased the right to trade, after all, not any type of obligation. Makes sense? Good. Because what follows is what makes options a little different. That is, if you sell that same right to engage in a specific trade the situation is seemingly reversed: you lock in your return at the outset, but the costs aren't fully realized until the trade is either consumed or declined by the owner of the option. And keep in mind that it is always the owner of the option who is in the driver's seat; they may sell the option, hold on to it and do nothing, or use it to engage in the anticipated trade. And that's really all there's to it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b", "text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a4e169b5eea3cfb86085c017abf222b", "text": "Here is a quick and dirty explanation of options. In a nutshell, you pay a certain amount to buy a contract that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a stock at a predetermined price at some date in the future. They come in a few flavors: I'll give you $100 if you let me buy 10,000 shares of XYZ for $10 more per share than it is trading at today any time before August 10th. I'll give you $100 if you promise to buy 10,000 shares of XYZ from me for $10 less per share than it is trading at today if I ask before August 10th. There are also two main types based on the expiration behavior: There are lots of strategies that employ options, too many to go into. Two key uses are.. Leverage: Buying Call options can give you a much higher return on your investment than just investing in the actual stock. However, with much higher risk of losing all of your investment instead of just some of it when the stock drops. Hedging: If you already own the underlying stock, put options can be used to buy down risk of serious drops in a holding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d07b7887dc667881835e9251cf86b105", "text": "&gt; The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebf74e54b59ea99d8e2245b5c5a37902", "text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ba855945cfa8e9af71a8036def16481", "text": "\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52981c665fee7c5690b99f2b7cb7e0d2", "text": "The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that. A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78e6e2f957a987d119a5a5707da97c33", "text": "I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call. They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27c61433e34654034b7d34f192f6750", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk.", "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": "b04f790ab2bc20075ad02ef249001c1e", "text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9969d9ad2a8fe4ee382ed3c75e664ca", "text": "There is less liquidity because they are less volatile. Option traders aren't exactly risk averse (read: are degenerate gamblers) and the other market participants that use options don't have much use for deep in the money options. Also, just trade more liquid assets and equities if you want liquid options. At-the-money options, and at-the-money options strategies have hundreds and thousand percent payoffs on relatively mundane price changes in the underlying asset.", "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": "9aacb0fcfba729270213c796ce604bd8", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-19/oil-s-slide-stalls-as-investors-weigh-stockpiles-against-libya) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The amount of oil stored in tankers reached a 2017 high of 111.9 million barrels earlier this month, according to Paris-based tracking company Kpler SAS. Oil has slipped below $45 a barrel as supplies in the U.S. remain plentiful and drillers continue to add rigs, raising concerns output cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia won&amp;#039;t succeed in draining bloated stockpiles. &gt; Crude stockpiles remain more than 100 million barrels above the five-year average, according to data from the EIA. American production has climbed to 9.33 million barrels a day through June 9, near the highest since August 2015. &gt; Libya is pumping about 900,000 barrels a day, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, who asked not to be identified for lack of authority to speak to the media. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ietvj/oil_prices_are_tumbling_more_than_2_toward_43/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~148648 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **barrel**^#1 **percent**^#2 **August**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **Oil**^#5\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5251b993f2df61493ab1d3a961a1ff8a", "text": "\"You are not wrong. This is called the \"\"Broken Window\"\" fallacy in economics. Imagine if 20% of a population was employed to go around breaking windows. This would stimulate the economy as many people would have to be employed to make new windows, repair the broken windows, etc.. The problem is that everyone would have been better off if they didn't have to spend their valuable resources on repairing a perfectly functioning window. Although many people will be employed to rebuild Japan, this doesn't improve the standard of living for the folks in Japan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10a656c7c1d2ca87a162b1eaeab7a979", "text": "\"You're entirely correct. It's one of those \"\"broken window\"\" fallacies. Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - \"\"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?\"\" Frederic Bastiat's 1850 essay, \"\"That which is seen and that which is not seen\"\" is still the best and most beautifully-written of such explanations. As you point out, a gain for the construction companies is more than offset by the loss of life and financial expenditure of the insurance companies. Plus, it is never possible to quantify the entirety of the loss in terms of opportunities foregone (\"\"that which is not seen\"\"). People who were about to do incredible things but now gone. Property, of any nature, no longer of use to build on or perform service. Any replacement comes at the expense of other opportunities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ad3d880e9d7646869f8714ddd5dd6f0", "text": "The problem here is that the metrics that are used to track the economy are looking for things like growth and change. In a perfect world, everyone would have exactly what they need and there would no need for economists because the economy would be static.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "941cf2ba28a5fb1b15c47aea99340118", "text": "It will have some positives, and some negatives. The hardest hit will be the insurance agencies, as well as banks. Manufacturing will also take a short term hit. When insurance payments come out, then there will be a boom in construction, consumer goods, industrial goods, etc. Companies will upgrade their equipment whereas before they might have let it run for another 10-20 years or longer. After all, if you are going to buy something, you aren't going to get it used, you'll get something more modern. Of course, Japan already was one of the most modern countries in the world, so they likely won't see as many gains as other countries, but this would hold more true in a less technologically advanced society. Long term, 10-20 years down the line, when everything is rebuilt, it might have a slight positive increase in productivity, but this will be somewhat offset because Japan already is such a technological powerhouse, and on the cutting edge in many technologies. But I agree, it's quite foolish to say that it'll improve the economy of Japan, some clarification should be done to clear that one up...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0633c29b92b10aa9f2da6b268fb35e2f", "text": "\"The people who benefit are large engineering and construction companies, manufacturers of construction equipment, bankers and lawyers. So in the world of realpolitik that we live in, the misery of millions of \"\"other people\"\" is spun as a net benefit, because \"\"we\"\" benefit from that misery.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c964a2755a0c7300abb81a9c680931f6", "text": "It certainly creates an opportunity for the re-distribution of wealth. Money will be transferred from insurance companies to construction companies. Businesses that go under will be replaced by ones that survived. Some companies will make a profit out of this, but as you have already figured out, no new wealth is created by the disaster. (Although lots has been destroyed, so we are looking at a net loss.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "515fe077377723f8c17b8faab6fa23c4", "text": "Wikipedia's article on the Parable of the broken window mentions that Keynesians would argue that broken windows can be useful in depressed economies. I think Japan's economy was somewhat depressed, so if it applies anywhere, it'd apply in this scenario.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7553c50f195a743abb304f1d7a6f6530", "text": "Until there is a significant price pressure, it’s always going to be cost prohibitive to build high in earthquake prone zones. Those mitigation measures don’t come cheap at all. As for the skyline, eh, that’s subjective. If the local culture values a “small town” or even bucolic feel, keeping buildings below tree lines isn’t regressive at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c325f06ff7af83af85a9381786b15a0", "text": "No. Our taxes allocated the resources necessary for us to have roads, power, and all the nice facilities we use. The rich benefited from the government offering them the jobs to build these things. Or did you forget about that part? You sound like you think the rich are altruistic. If they were, would we really be in the situation we are today, with the increasing wage gap and people distrusting big business? No. We would laud big business as our saviors and protectors, would have confidence that big business is there if we fall down, to pick us up. But big business has shown it is more about back stabbing than helping.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99cea4ea29b3d66ca884f401306360e1", "text": "Chicago has several neighborhoods going through that same gentrification cycle. There are several more city neighborhoods that will probably see that kind of rebuilding before Gary, many of which you pass through traveling between downtown and Gary. Transit between Chicago and Gary exists, but it's not as good as transit to other suburbs because of the lack of cooperation between Illinois and Indiana.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbf0a8bf5ebf1b3e1ed132596db4939a", "text": "Building tanks and helicopters is the use of the countries economic resources for goods that provide no net benefit to the economy beyond their construction price. If, for example, the government wanted to stimulate the economy by spending $1 trillion on something, sure, the country's GDP would by definition increase by $1 trillion, and there'd probably be some multiplier effect by those workers now having additional money to spend on other goods. There's also going to be some negative effects on other sectors of the economy because the prices for labor and raw materials will go up because of the increased demand from the government. If the government is buying $100 billion in steel and aluminum, you can bet that the spot prices of steel and aluminum is going to jump up, squeezing any private industries that need to buy those resources. Now the question is what do you spend that $1 trillion on to get the biggest bang for your buck. Military hardware accomplishes the goal of having something disposable to buy with $1 trillion, but little additional benefit to the private economy. If you instead spent $1 trillion on building infrastructure (bridges/roads/dams/pipelines/flood control), scientific research, or education, you've now generated goods that have their own intrinsic value to society beyond their cost - whether it be less traffic, new scientific discoveries, or a more educated workforce.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c869a09ee00b8672fb4f041bf9835f20", "text": "Which will almost certainly cause more of a real estate bubble in the urban core. If you can't afford to live there you don't get a good job and the local councils will strike down attempts to build more housing. This will not end well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8556398e6e591a6e2ab338b1ae6087d6", "text": "In a way this is good because it encourages people to move out of these high cost areas to lower cost. Over time that will tend to even out the problem and move resources around the country. Anyone waiting for NYC to become cheap again is just plain stupid. It didn't even get cheap in the 2008 crash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d4e2f50066dd7f36ddafc743b62f23", "text": "Don't try because it's a moving target. A thriving economy on paper can be entirely valuation based. It tells you nothing about distribution of wealth in the economy. The majority would be destitute and we could still be talking of booming times if speculative markets can find creative ways of growing valuations of existing assets with credi growth. All that is needed is for two people to bid a painting to 100 million for the painting to have contributed positively to a growth in the value of goods and services in the economy. The same is done with intellectual property and corporate valuations. Good times are times when capital gains can be seized on account of expansionin of credit or government spending. Recessions are closer when governments try and pull in more than they spend and when lending can't expand. Government spending is increaasing these days despite talk of the contrary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d06525efe0150a80ee674745dfe0cf60", "text": "It’s really hard to interpret the scale of this effect. How many listings does an area need to have for this to hold true? If a town goes from 5 listings to 25 (400% increase!) would that translate to a 15% increase in average rent? Probably not. Percent of total housing stock being listed on Airbnb would probably be a better measurement. At least in NYC, the city of perpetually too high rent, the rate of rent increases has been relatively low, despite the rise of Airbnb over the last few years. Without reading the (not yet published ) study that this article is reporting on, it’s not possible to say whether the .39% increase in rent is a meaningful contribution, or a barely measurable statistic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c736826887aa913f0544388ca51db098", "text": "If the building has no income, it also probably has minimal expenses. The heat, water and electricity costs are nearly zero. They are letting the value depreciate, and taking it off the taxes. I also suspect the condition of the building is poor, so any effort to make the building productive would be very costly. Many cities combat this by setting the tax on empty buildings or empty lots at a much higher rate. Or they set the value of the property at a high valuation based on what it could generate. Sometimes this is only targeted at some sections of the city to encourage development. They also offer tax breaks when the owner of a house has the house as their principal residence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46e735a6ff3da6e51a55fea9c5345e5a", "text": "Have a beef with your proof... measuring at the county level is misleading. Baltimore county has some wealthy areas. It goes all the way up to the state line. There's plenty of more affluent pockets included in that. Same is true for Detroit, Wayne county includes many affluent areas. Rural counties however tend to be isolated and more uniform. If you're looking in Owsley Kentucky (poorest county per that article)... it's not really near anything resembling a major commerce area and there's no pockets of higher-value homes hidden anywhere like you find around major metro areas...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33cb7c8786213c9e33b8c0d18204fcf1", "text": "I never said it didn't have a visible effect on local economies, but the total from your posts barely clicks over 100k jobs. Advances in engineering have devastated the manual labor industry much more than any outsourcing could accomplish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6af5f8c2b9eb1c37d0314aa5c5686681", "text": "There's nothing really there to comprehend. Cost and demand are inversely proportional. Boosting demand has the same effect as reducing costs. Actually, there is something to comprehend. People will use the appeal of central economic planning to funnel money to their pet projects. Regardless of what that project is, the allocation of resources to it by artificial means throws off equilibrium in the entire economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6ab7b07e253e53eeb7ab7817fde6bd6", "text": "No because that $100k didnt just come from nowhere, it came from tax payers. Tax payer who wouldve used the money to buy other things or use differently. the govt redirecting it to the two hole diggers does not ADD to the economy, it takes away because the capital is forced down an unproductive avenue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f01e1a7edf63a0988a205ed059a30d2d", "text": "You’ll find home owners calling the experts for this project as they want to sell the property. In this situation, hiring project management Sydney experts and getting renovation done gives a handsome boost to the property’s resale value and find most of the project management Sydney companies offering the service called restoration.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79d1b408f0f7af38929242b30586d28c", "text": "\"I didn't idly pick the SF Bay as my model. That place was literally \"\"Rust-Belt West\"\" after industrial contraction starting at the end of WWII and continuing through the '70s. But the Silicon Valley boom didn't revitalize the former industrial areas, but merely a few 'gentrified' spots, *like where those buses originate*. Those 400K new 'service/support' jobs *won't pay enough* to allow the workers to live *in the city*. They'll be commuting from *beyond* the upper-crust suburbs you mention, [just like these Californians](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ff877f1b75ec383bd26eeb7c552b25cd", "text": "Yes, this can and does certainly happen. When two companies each own stock in each other, it's called a cross holding. I learned about cross holdings in reference to Japanese companies (see Wikipedia - Keiretsu) but the phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to that jurisdiction. Here are a few additional references:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d52617a3b93fb720163e424395e3032a", "text": "Absolutely. In fact, all stock purchases of more than 5% of a company's stock must be reported to the SEC, so assuming A and B are publicly traded companies in the US, the purchase would likely be a matter of public record. There are probably special cases where this could cause problems, however; any case where A's purchase of B's stock (or vice versa) runs afoul of regulation would be one such case. For example, if company A wants to own a controlling interest in company B and appoint members of its board of directors and both companies were in the same heavily-concentrated market, regulators may frown on the potential for decreased competition. Such regulations may apply to any purchase of a controlling interest in a company, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87", "text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3a2db3bcbf259521d3dc1cfe18a4073", "text": "Yes, this happens a lot. And in many cases companies don't even know this is happening. Collateralized Debt Obligations frequently contain pieces of the same financial products, where it is not obvious what the underlying asset is. It gets complicated to explain, but I can make an analogy to a portfolio of stocks you might create. Your portfolio contains companies and those companies also own some of the other companies in your same portfolio. The value of all the companies in your portfolio are very interrelated even though you thought you made diversified investments, under the idea that they can't all do poorly at the exact same time. Except they can, if the value of the company's shares are solely based on the value of other company's shares, but nobody noticed that none of them have an actual robust operations. This was a key factor of the financial disaster around 2008, but this problem was solved with the addition of additional disclaimers that all investors agree to, so they know what they are buying", "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": "b34732078e878961b77988a504a7cad3", "text": "I am probably not the most qualified person, but I have taken some managerial finance courses. If company B is still in tact, has its own documentation saying it's a company and all that, the only income company A would need to claim from B is that which B profited and the profits were given to A. I see the above scenario similar to owning an asset, like a bond, which pays you interest. If the companies are merged, most definitely but that probably wasn't your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8bf45e7f978f6eede10dc892f7ebbcb", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7e127b0fa41389b4f06b9f16c85775", "text": "It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns. If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash. If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money. If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners. Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company.", "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": "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": "4675bd9a58984de643e21efc51fa8034", "text": "For all practical purposes the words mean the same thing. Shares are just stock in a particular company whereas stock can refer to shares over many companies. Investopedia has a good explaination. If you are a financial journalist you might want to make sure you are using the right term at the right time, but otherwise they are synonyms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99f12ff59bf48a85cb17d5c598446f19", "text": "Energy Transfer Partners, LP (stock symbol ETP) is the parent company of Dakota Access LLC, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Since ETP is a publicly traded company, it is certainly possible to purchase the stock. To answer your questions: Would it not be possible to buy their stocks, bring down the price of the stocks and keep it there until investors pull out because it is financially unwise to these investors? You cannot artificially bring the price of a stock down by buying the stock. Purchasing large enough amounts would theoretically cause the price to go up, not down. You could theoretically cause the stock to go down by shorting the stock (borrowing shares and then selling them), but it would take a lot of shares to do this, and may not be successful. If not successful, your losses are potentially unlimited. Would it alternatively be possible to buy enough stock to have a voice in the operations of the company? Yes, you could theoretically purchase enough of the stock to control the company. The market capitalization of ETP is currently $17.9 Billion; if you owned half of the stock, you would have complete control of the company. But buying that much stock would certainly influence the price of the stock, so it would cost you more than half of that amount to buy that much stock. You could get yourself a voice at the table for less without owning a full half of the stock, but you would not have full control, and would need support from others to get the outcome you want. Alternatively, someone determined to exert their influence could theoretically make an offer to purchase the Dakota Access subsidiary from ETP, which might be less costly than purchasing half of the entire corporation. Even if an extremely wealthy person were to try one of these options and destroy this company, it wouldn't necessarily stop another company from building something similar. The investors you purchased the company from would have billions of dollars to do so with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3657167e43d1c4e588fe82cd759ef78f", "text": "If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors. So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83", "text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad834980c8330d15845645b9551a35af", "text": "Sure they can (most publicly traded banks at least) - and they do it a lot. Many banks have a proprietary trading desk, or Prop desk, where traders are buying and selling shares of publicly traded companies on behalf of the bank, with the bank's own money. This is as opposed to regular trading desks where the banks trade on behalf of their customers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "4ff798af431d6755b22dcf6694af8ed0", "text": "\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \"\"philosophical\"\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \"\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\"\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44", "text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94bb2c78e53e724332c56ff22613b9ec", "text": "www.mint.com is a very good web site that can upload your financial data from your bank and analyze it for you. Security concerns seem to have been addressed reassuringly.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "661f33e62466e5895f8ac34f2a5ff5c6", "text": "What is the relationship between inflation and interest rates? notes a relationship between inflation and interest rates that would suggest high inflation would imply higher interest rates that would mean less loans as money becomes more expensive in a sense. In contrast, in times of low inflation then rates may be low and thus there is a greater chance of people and businesses wanting loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "932a6bb74f8c695d3afa4ff3e828ce46", "text": "In terms of operations, banks are indifferent to inflation. Short rates except right before a recession or near-recession are always lower than long rates, regardless of inflation level, assuming no quotas or price controls. Banks produce credit by borrowing short to lend long, so as long as short rates are lower than long rates, they can be expected to produce loans, again assuming no quotas or price controls. In short, from the banks' perspective, inflation does not affect their desire to produce credit.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a329b56b19b8b4fe4427e5efe77c3d45", "text": "It seems from the Bernanke and pundits in general that there's an ideal inflation rate and it's not zero. When you reference that recessions bring prices down, I think I understand you, but recession does not mean deflation. In fact deflation is a rarity, not a common occurrence. When you look at what compounding does, you see that a 3% inflation rate will double the cost of an item in 24 years. From 1975 to 2010, inflation was 4X as it ran well above 3% for a time. I chose that date as I was 13 at the time, and wasn't too aware of specific prices before that. So I've seen a pizza go from $3 to $12 during my life. I hope to live long enough to see it double again. I think that it's hyperinflation that's an ongoing concern, but the controlled inflation as I just described is not detrimental, in fact it's preferable in some sense. For example, when I look at my 5% mortgage, it's 3.6% after tax, but with a 3% inflation rate, my cost is really .6%, as the remaining debt devalues over time and the house (in theory) goes up with inflation. On the other extreme, higher inflation, say 8%, starts to be detrimental, distorting spending behavior and bad for the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d75d9d5c4aa7f516fd700eac2a55788", "text": "I'd agree, inflation affects the value of the dollar you measure anything in. So, it makes your debt fade away at the same rate it eats away at dollar denominated assets. I'd suggest that one should also look at the tax effect of the debt or assets as well. For example, my 3.5% mortgage costs me 2.625% after tax. But a 4% long term cap gain in stocks, costs me .6% in tax for a net 3.4%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5335ecf49cf360aa289d99ecc552d636", "text": "Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70568de6258ac4ff20caf60647f630e", "text": "\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba326d329c8e239ec41ea6590f2d3269", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign. There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur. I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe. Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items. Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71a50ca4d80ab616d4321d9aa4ce5354", "text": "The worst part of government induced tuition inflation wasn't even the GI Bill. Although I'm sure that started it a bit. It really took off in the late 1970s / 1980 with the establishment of the Department of Education and the Sallie Mae loan clearing house. There's a massive inflection point in historical inflation adjusted tuition prices right around 1980, when those were established. No coincidence. Also, you know whats worse than the **government** getting in the housing-price-inflation business? The freaking **central bank** getting in on the housing-price-inflation business. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/quarterly-balance-sheet-developments-report.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/quarterly_balance_sheet_developments_report_201708.pdf The federal reserve holds $4.4 T in total assets. That is the sole source of the entire money supply of the United States Dollar. It does not come from anywhere else. Of course, you get money velocity and money multipliers after that, but this is the origin. Of that $4.4 T, they hold $2.4 T in US Treasury securities. Ok, that's fine. That's the whole point of the federal reserve. They control the money supply through buying / selling (letting mature / redeem) US government securities. But wait, hold up, what the heck happened to the other $2.0 T in assets ... um, where did those go? There are some other assets, but the next largest ... the federal reserve owns $1.7 T in mortgage backed securities. Holy ... effing ... sheeeeeeeet. What in the actual f*** is the central bank doing buying mortgage backed securities? That absolutely, positively, is **NOT** monetary policy. That shit is fiscal policy, which the federal reserved is **NOT** supposed to be engaging in. And now you know why housing prices are even more effed up than tuition prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5006e159057eb54f759199c5b603f5f", "text": "There's a difference between physical currency and money (For example a bank may only hold only a small percentage of total deposits as cash that it's customers can withdraw). I'm not sure which you're referring to, but either way you should read about inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "931efdb6af74a7feffd7a87fd30575f2", "text": "Inflation is not applicable in the said example. You are better off paying 300 every month as the balance when invested will return you income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2958f86f8f366a00d2d7f0d9d1521dea", "text": "I believe it goes a little something like this: During period of inflation, all boats rise. Everyone get's richer, and gain control of more physical assets. During periods of depression, debts are being called due by those who gave out the loans (these few powerful men) that can't be paid, and so foreclosures and the like occur, giving the creditors control of the actual physical assets. Basically you have to track physical assets instead of financial ones to see how the boom and busts are beneficial to the wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc6ff22d4a46d1b5085eed248eb0c7e0", "text": "That sounds like bunk too me. Even if it does, the total number of loans isn't going to be a major factor in your credit score. I wouldn't worry about it unless you have other reasons to consolidate the loans. For example, Government student loans can introduce risk into your finances in that they are difficult to dismiss as part of a bankruptcy if that ever becomes necessary.", "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": "04d4827d726ea7bf03eb32ae11d2012b", "text": "Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edfaea8b74131376f39df1847e966ad5", "text": "It's misleading news. Comparing debt levels in nominal terms is completely pointless over a period of more than a few months. The article you responded to quite literally quoted extracts from the article you subsequently posted and explained why they were misleading or incorrect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e87a814da9242f7855873f3fdeff89", "text": "I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "224b2adcaf210e11107ae36c6a1e6b3e", "text": "\"Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest. Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling. When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any \"\"artificial\"\" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls. Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short \"\"squeeze\"\", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest. Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect. If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction. Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity. Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price. If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ef19f9bbaaf703cd0cc967bc14a54c87", "text": "So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf5b32f35f7abee59654d27bc3adecab", "text": "There are legitimate multi currency mutual funds/efts. But I don't think their rate of return will produce the extra money you're looking for any faster than any other kind of investment with comparable risks. To make money fast, you have to accept nontrivial risk of losing money fast, which isn't what you seem to have in mind.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "90da52d0db0ff30eb04f78eb18a7a3d0", "text": "While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9c7a2b4d3a134dcd6af5b51cad29cc", "text": "I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27acb3a29321704c83bb98fb0365ae59", "text": "It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d42137aed0a277db3fba7aab67fa1b", "text": "EFA must be bought and sold in US dollars. XIN allows people to buy and sell EFA in Canadian dollars without exposing their investment to unpredictable swings in the USD/CAD ratio. This is what's known as a currency-hedged instrument. Now, why the chart sums up to over 100% is anyone's guess. Presumably it's the result of a couple hundred rounding errors from all the components. If you view their most recent report, it also sums up to over 100%, but at least the EFA component is (sensibly) under 100%. P.S. I'm not seeing where it says there's only one holding. There's the primary holding, plus over 100 other cash holdings to effect the currency-hedging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625c51b04a0f46376f261af653ae8fa1", "text": "If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6", "text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f9cbe3b50a9686f25b461e586e1a98", "text": "I actually use a service called etorro, there are social trading and normal trading. It allows me to put money into the service, follow other people or just pick my own shares to buy and sell with a load other features. It does cost a small amount to extract money but the app is really good, the website is well designed and I've made a bit of money being 23, and in the It industry with no financial training ever it seems like a good way to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a55bba895997279718bc6a7a8b1739de", "text": "Like all other trading brokers in the industry, they both have been acknowledged with mixed reviews. Before signing up, it’s important to know whether they are running a legitimate operation or not. You can see BinaryOptionsTrading-Review.com, judgebinaryoptions.com etc. to inquiries about these sites. They conduct in-depth research to identify the legitimacy of each brokers present in the market. Hope it will help you in making the right decision.", "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": "f07032dc0d4e06f537d847062dfa7294", "text": "\"If you have a big pocket there are quite a few.. not sure if they take us clients though. Vcap, Barclays, Icap, Fixi, Fc Stone, Ikon.. Then there are probably a few banks that have x options also but i don't know if a private investor can trade them. A few im not sure if they have fx options or if they are \"\"good\"\": GFTFOREX, Gain capital, XTB, hmslux, Ifx Markets, Alpari, us.etrade.com Betonmarkets might be something if you are interested in \"\"exotic options\"\" maybe?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c8e697d20dcb9d21f4bc92bce2ac16", "text": "With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d880b5026c820d20291b65f8cfa7baa5", "text": "\"I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you \"\"could\"\" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8331b83bbbd50d34c1de1b1590da0a5", "text": "The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5", "text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0c76fe4c4a54eb8b479128234d7f9d32", "text": "Don't go for the 'fast buck'. There's no such thing. There are two types of people that make money on the stock market: Investors and Speculators. Investors are people that pick a stock that's relatively low, relatively secure, and buy the stock for the long run, 5, 10 years or more. Warren Buffet said his ideal period for investing is forever. Basically, a well run company should always be a good investment. Speculators go for the fluctuations in stock prices. Day traders, Options, etc. It's risky business and you'll be able to lose a lot of money in a short term. There's always a risk when you invest your money, so go with MrChrister's advise to start with a simulator. Have fun.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22e239972dac3e26f13831a161713493", "text": "Sounds like you are a candidate for stock trading simulators. Or just pick stocks and use Yahoo! or Google finance tools to track and see how you do. I wouldn't suggest you put real money into it. You need to learn about research and timing and a bunch of other topics you can learn about here. I personally just stick to life cycle funds that are managed products that offer me a cruise control setting for investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0208a6224243ddf8b221a8220ab554a9", "text": "Probably several years at least. Maybe more like ten years. You need to watch a market for a substantial period of time to make money consistently. If you hit it big before then, you beat the odds that were against you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8385c0865e7256074dcc460290df305e", "text": "\"What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying \"\"I like this trade\"\" (be sure to know why) and \"\"I dislike that trade.\"\" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a \"\"rhythm,\"\" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: \"\"You pay your money and you take your chances,\"\" NOT \"\"You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38dbc03bb62d2e65febd29d329de169f", "text": "Very subjective question. some may do it in the first year, some lose money all their life. Some make a fortune and then lose it. Investing time is only a small part of it. some people can never do it just because investing is not for everyone. Just like any other business. or you can invest into t-bill and CDs, you'll be profitable from day one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adcf4d81a16e9141f53d218267ac3b5f", "text": "\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "738492868cfe3b53ce96b43f677db390", "text": "Making a profit in trading is not a function of time, it's a function of information, speed, and consistency. Regardless of how much time you spend learning about trading, there is no guarantee that you will ever become profitable because you will always be competing against a counter-party who is either better- or more poorly-informed than you are. Since trading is a zero-sum game, someone is always a winner and someone else is always a loser. So you need to be either better informed than your counter-party, or you need to be as well informed as them but beat them to the punch. You also need to be able to be consistent, or else eventually you will get wiped out when the unexpected happens or you make a mistake. This is why resources such as full-time professional analysts, high-speed trading terminals/platforms, and sophisticated algorithms can provide significant advantages. Personally, I think that people with talent and those kinds of resources would take all my lunch money, so I don't trade and stick to passive investing. One funny story, I once knew a trader who was in the money on a particular trade and went out to have a drink to celebrate. The next day, she remembered that she had forgotten to exercise the options. Luckily, they had expired while in the money, and by rule had been exercised automatically as a result.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "219afdbc6619fc85aae68f2bda2534ae", "text": "It depends on how you define trading. If you're looking at day-trading, where you're probably going to be in a highly-leveraged position for minutes or hours, the automated traders are probably going to kill you. But, if you have a handful (less than a dozen) equities, and spend about an hour or so every week conducting research, you have a good chance of doing pretty well. You need to understand the market, listen to the earnings calls, and understand the factors that contribute to the bottom line of your investments. You should not be trading for the sake of trading, you're trading to try to achieve the best returns. Beware of dogmatists and people selling products that align with their dogma. Warren Buffet invests in companies for an extremely long investment window. Mr. Buffet also expends significant resources to gain a deep understanding of the fundamentals of the businesses that he invests in and the factors affecting those fundamentals. Buffet does not buy an S&P 500 index fund and whistle dixie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff39ab1376109ae17ca524f32bc25e3", "text": "I suppose it depends on your goals and expectations, but I'd argue its not easy. Regardless of the chosen sub discipline of trading or investing you pursue there will be some theoretical and research work to do, some learning of the mechanics of the market, and some 'ropes' to learn upfront. After that the time frame you are working in, the complexity and time requirements of your methodology dictate how much time you need. I personally spend enough time on it to be considered equivalent to a part time job, but I enjoy continually learning and researching. If I weren't constantly trying to improve and research I would say the mechanics might take a half hour a day. However, I would gladly do it full time if I were able. I believe that is important, if you simply want to make lots of money but hate the process you will likely fail. As mentioned earlier if you are new to this the majority of your time will be spent initially learning whats out there, trying various things out, and finding what works for you. There are a lot of different ways to approach the market and a number of markets to approach. For me it took two years to find my niche and become profitable. Learn to loose small and keep your itchy fingers in check during that learning curve.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f08ece9b46dd5e98c99a0bf2c47f770a", "text": "Yeah, too subjective of a question I shorted BP last year during the deep water crisis, using a leveraged account 20 times larger than the amount of cash I actually had, instantly profitable. I was long Freddie Mac in March 2009 and that took several months to turn to move and turned a 100% gain I've flipped penny stocks trading at .0001 cents, bought a few million shares and sold them at .0002 cents. Sometimes instantly, sometimes over several months because they were illiquid I'm primarily a derivatives trader right now, which I did not know about or understand less than a year ago. Dont have crazy targets, that how you will blow up your account. Have meticulously calculated plans. Also you need to determine what kind of trader you are.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "15c5d78ccb8d6d61e0703f8875d028f5", "text": "\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec6a62c3f49a4773caab0a81a1bb78e0", "text": "\"I interned for about six months at a firm that employed a few technical analysts, so I'll try to provide what little information I can. Since the bulk of the intra-day trading was decided algorithmically, technical analysts had two main functions: This basically boils down to my answer to your question. There are still enough people, trading firms, etc. who believe in candlestick charting and other visually subjective patterns that if you notice a trend, pattern, etc. before the majority of traders observing, you may be able to time the market successfully and profit. This is becoming increasingly dangerous, however, because of the steps I outlined above. Over time, the charting patterns that have been proven effective (often in many firms individually since the algorithms are all proprietary) are incorporated into computer algorithms, so the \"\"traders\"\" you're competing with to see the pattern are increasingly low-latency computer clusters less than a few blocks from the exchange. Summary: Candlestick charting, along with other forms of subjective technical analysis, has its believers, and assuming enough of these believers trade the standard strategies based on the standard patterns, one could conceivably time the market with enough skill to anticipate these traders acting on the pattern and therefore profit. However, the marginal benefits of doing so are decreasing rapidly as computers take over more trading responsibility. Caveats: I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in. My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole. This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted. I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down). It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented. One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none. This study finds that several technical indicators, e.g. head-and-shoulder, double-bottom, and various rectangle techniques, do provide marginal value. They also find that although human judgment is still superior to most computational algorithms in the area of visual pattern recognition, ... technical analysis can be improved by using automated algorithms Since this paper was published in 2000, computing power and statistical analysis have gained significant ground against human ability to identify and exploit for visual pattern detection like candlestick charts. Second, I suggest you look into David Aaronson's book, Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals. He finds similar results to the Lo, et. al. paper, in that some technical indicators do add value to the investment process, but those that do are those that can be represented mathematically and thus programmed directly into trading algorithms (thus bypassing visual tools like candlestick charts). He describes how studies, including Lo, et al., have found that head and shoulders patterns are worse than random, i.e. you would earn higher returns if you simply traded at random. That point is worth than repeating. If a day-trader is using a candlestick chart and using head-and-shoulders patterns as part of their toolkit, he's rolling the dice when he uses that pattern and returns that come from its application come from chance. This reminds me of that old story about a company that sends out pamphlets predicting the results of sports games, complete with \"\"strategies\"\" and \"\"data\"\" to back up the predictions. The company sends out several versions of the pamphlet every game, each predicting a different winner. Given a large enough sample size, by the end of the season, there are a few people who have received a pamphlet that accurately predicted the winner for every game and they're convinced the system is perfect. The others weren't so lucky, however. Relying on candlestick charts and TA patterns that are relics from the pre-computerized era is reassuring to some traders and gives them a sense of control and \"\"beating the market,\"\" but how long will chance remain on your side? This is why I maintain that visual tools like candlestick charts are a slowly dying medium. They certainly still add value to some trading firms, which is why Bloomberg terminals still ship with this functionality built in, but as more and more research shows, automated algorithms and statistical indicators can provide more value. It's also important to think about whether the majority of the value added by visual tools like candlestick charts comes in the form of profit or a sense of security to traders who learned the field using them over the past few decades. Finally, it's extremely important to realize that the actions of retail investors in the equities market cannot begin to represent the behaviors of the market as a whole. In the equities markets alone, trading firms and institutional investors dwarf retail investors, and the difference in scale is even more vastly pronounced in derivatives and currency markets. The fact that some retail investors use candlestick charts and the technical indicators they (hope) underlie them provides nothing but minor anecdotal evidence as to their effectiveness.\"", "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": "fd9a98455fed7756d4b3f2fb56ea0aca", "text": "How long is a piece of string? This will depend on many variables. How many trades will you make in a day? What income would you be expecting to make? What expectancy do you need to achieve? Which markets you will choose to trade? Your first step should be to develop a Trading Plan, then develop your trading rules and your risk management. Then you should back test your strategy and then use a virtual account to practice losing on. Because one thing you will get is many losses. You have to learn to take a loss when the market moves against you. And you need to let your profits run and keep your losses small. A good book to start with is Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom by Van Tharp. It will teach you about Expectancy, Money Management, Risk Management and the Phycology of Trading. Two thing I can recommend are: 1) to look into position and trend trading and other types of short term trading instead of day trading. You would usually place your trades after market close together with your stops and avoid being in front of the screen all day trying to chase the market. You need to take your emotion out of your trading if you want to succeed; 2) don't trade penny stocks, trade commodities, FX or standard stocks, but keep away from penny stocks. Just because you can buy them for a penny does not mean they are cheap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd145cb1b9257d7f0fc1084a1d650913", "text": "I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him. That's why you have to subtract 600-100. At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:", "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": "b8c4048dcc3c547e7f46c1ce80de2504", "text": "I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b5b8c8ef42cad5494a1aef39fc1fab", "text": "\"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adb62c59688d717c78ad88e05c417a2b", "text": "\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f08e13fc7dc2e38f1130fcc08cae6595", "text": "I would add to this that, while everyone is right on trading, there are certain special situations you could look into that could turn a profit in a relatively short time frame (one month, say). A recent example is Northstar Realty Finance (NRF). I bought in at $16.50 prior to a spinoff, sold half (the spinoff company) at $18.75 within a month, and the other half (the REIT) has since paid a 50 cent dividend and gone up to mid $18s as well within a total of just over 2 months. (This admittedly sounds like bragging, which isn't intended- I just want to give an example of a short term position resulting in a gain, and I don't know any off the top of my head except the one I did recently). This isn't trading, but it is a short term position that would have turned a profit with $1800. I still wouldn't recommend it, considering commissions eats a sizable portion. But if you want to take short term positions, you don't need as much as you would to be a day trader. I would read Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety, the sections on spinoffs and bankruptcy. They provide some useful information on some short term positions. However, also be aware that you should be willing to hold any short term position as a long term position if it does not immediately work out. By way of example, I believed NRF would go up post spinoff but the spinoff company stay the same. Instead, NRF stayed the same and the spinoff went up. But NRF was undervalued, so I held it for another month. Just my advice. As far as learning goes- use play money. But if you never are going to have enough money to really trade with, hopefully my info on short-term positions is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd5ae4ad802cd3b96a0367f8d5fadfb", "text": "\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c67e32269a972e5a4e46ebb9ed6a7e07", "text": "Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much) will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value. For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$. Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "287abd3ebbfcb507ff4925d063c7db43", "text": "I made upwards of 3M from 200K by trading stocks, which I made from a business that I invested 20K in. HOWEVER, DO NOT use trading stocks as a source of income, you're gambling with your precious cash. There are safer alternatives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20453d9084fa515d30f1251b55b7f57e", "text": "it just depends on your situation and sometimes accounting can't fix that. by mentor pays 35% even though he only goes back to the USA to visit. I go back less than 30 days a year so I can claim I'm a foreign resident but if all my income is in the USA I'm screwed. I can't even route my income through my wife who has never stepped foot in the USA because we must claim whatever she makes. US tax laws are so bad that it takes a lot just to get an account with HSBC in Hong Kong", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c90b77f8c8fd8d9d56cc1222431a44c", "text": "Unsecured loan is any loan that you don't provide an asset as a collateral for. Auto loans are usually secured - by the auto. If you don't pay off the car, it will be repossessed. Credit cards are a good example, personal/business loans are also usually unsecured, and you've pretty much covered it. Majority of loans, especially for large amounts, are usually given for a specific purpose (usually purchase of a large asset) and are secured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7932813d717f1d14c25ccd9968c9f3f4", "text": "Some other unsecured loans that are common:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeed7031edc659241184a958b5404ae3", "text": "\"Auto loans are secured agains the car. \"\"Signature\"\" loans, from a bank that knows and trusts you, are typically unsecured. Unsecured loans other than informal ones or these are fairly rare. Most lenders don't want to take the additional risk, or balance that risk with a high enough interest rate to make the unsecured loan unattractive.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "189a66f93855ab6c733ddfe1531ccd84", "text": "Unsecured loans are loans that have not been “secured” with any kind of collateral. For example, the bank does not have the ability to take your property or automobile if you stop making payments on an unsecured loan. These loans are sometimes referred “signature loans” due to the face your signature on the loan agreement is all that you deliver to the table. Unsecured loans are available in a variety of flavors.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6f2c27c7f73773c5751edef1d9d7f003", "text": "\"This does not seem, to me, to be a very good indication regarding the risk of the person not paying their balances off. If you do not have a source of income then how are you going to repay your debt. Not to mention there is recource for creditors to garnish wages. That is not possible if you have no income. The risk assessment is about the ability of the creditor to recover any moneys loaned and costs and still make a profit. For example, students have their parents pay them some pocket money to cover for expenses, or a person might be working sporadically on consulting gigs that do not have a fixed monthly or yearly component. Most credit card companies that are willing to issue to college students will allow you to include money from your parents in your income. Credit card companies are looking for customers that will carry a balance and incur fees but be able to pay them. These companies do not make money off of fees and interest that they do not collect. As such, sporatic work increases risk. Is it possible for people to get approved for unsecured credit cards if they don't hold (or have not held for some time) a job at the time of application? I was able to while I was in college. Though I did have a part time job. If you can show that you have the ability to pay you can usually get a credit card if you do not have bad credit. It will probably be high interest and have alot of fees some of them you will have to pay upfront. But what you probably mean to ask is \"\"Is it possible to get a no cost unsecured credit card with out a reliable source of income?\"\" The answer to that is: probably not. Even the ones that look like they are free probably have hidden fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89b1469e9f897d46c351586089503c11", "text": "\"Collateralized & Secured are interchangeable terms. Note the following two quotes from wikipedia (links below): \"\"A secured loan is a loan in which the borrower pledges some asset (e.g. a car or property) as collateral for the loan, which then becomes a secured debt owed to the creditor who gives the loan.\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secured_loan \"\"In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower's pledge of specific property to a lender, to secure repayment of a loan.\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_%28finance%29 This website also uses the terms interchangeably: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-collateral-loan.htm Loan & Line of Credit are not interchangeable terms. In a loan, you receive a one time disbursement & repay it over a fixed amortization schedule. (Think home mortgage) In a line of credit, you can pay back & re-borrow from your credit line as often as you need. (Think credit card or Home Equity Line of Credit)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55467febe0d49ff69a56f5882b99fb1a", "text": "I dunno. Borrow $65,000 with zero collateral, string the lender along for 20+ years, then die? Sounds like a great decision to me. I wonder why a bank would ever take the other end of that lemon of a deal? Oh, right...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36f2fc77755e0aa798a2148136896264", "text": "Proper enforcement of laws currently on the books that should have prevented a company like Citi from selling loans that violated their own underwriting standards would have knocked out a huge part of it. Banks would have been a lot less willing to give loans to people who couldn't afford them if they knew that they couldn't flip them on the secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84da15fcc9d360379289e1a748504713", "text": "The loan is very likely to be syndicated, yes. I only state 7-10 because all of our loans to this point have been 7 year terms. And in many ways, this loan is just one of those loans, multiplied out in a modular sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90aa732c8acaa39ca745a812f96591f0", "text": "Apart from the reasons currently given (which have to do with personal relations), wouldn't a good reason to take the loan from the bank be to build up a credit history and/or improve your credit score?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0468e30e7d3a26d8b140aca7f5f31db", "text": "Lol GM and Chrysler unsecured bonds had terrible recoveries when they defaulted in 08. They sure as fuck weren't backed by the Treasury. The government just won't let the big automakers liquidate. Perhaps a simple Google search before you pontificate next time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "262b3aa336e364f9d8b702737a0c465a", "text": "I think people are conflating two orthogonal sets of terms. Unsecured/secured and good/bad are not synonyms. Debt may be secured or unsecured. If I take a loan against a car or house it is typically secured, so the object is collateral against the loan. Bad debt in financial terms is a loan that is not expected to be recovered. A bank might write off a loan or a portion of a loan as bad debt if the borrower goes bankrupt or into administration for example. Both secured and unsecured loans may be considered bad debt. I think the context in which the question is being asked is how to distinguish between sensible and inadvisable borrowing. An extreme example of inadvisable borrowing would be to buy a PC on a store card. PCs devalue very quickly and a store card may charge 30% APR, so paying the minimum off each month would mean paying more than twice the sticker price for a product that is now worth less than half the original borrowed amount. On the other hand, a 3% mortgage when borrowing less than 60% of the value of a property is a good bet from a lender's perspective, and would be a good debt to have (not as good as no debt, but better thhan a high APR one).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ce090248b34fd727d07721bd7a15640", "text": "I completely agree with requirements, like GPA. I think that weeds some bad loans out, and is a much better version of tough love than non-dischargable debt once you are out of school. The non-discharged debt problem is tough, and I think this aspect ties into the college cost inflation: If you, as a lender, basically have a perpetual lien on someone because they can't discharge the debt, then you (lender) can issue riskier loans, and more of them. I haven't heard the term 'subprime loans' used to describe student debt, but I think the term is just as applicable to bad student creditors as it was to bad home creditors in the housing bubble. There seems to be moral hazard involved for lenders that have non-discharge covenants, and so they lend, even after government lenders tell people 'no more.'", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af0ce708ad38b9462d3c05f97fadf06b", "text": "Banks are audited, for obvious reasons. Their software is carefully audited and protected, also for obvious reasons. A branch manager can't normally bypass those without getting caught quite quickly. He might be able to issue himself a loan -- but it will have to be a loan that at least appears to conform to the bank's standards, and he'll have to pay it off just like any other loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a99ef0c8cc1d1302d5e75e47d44c9610", "text": "In some cases, especially but not only for subprime loans, they are actually testing whether you will lie to them. (Discovered this when working on a loan origination applicatíon for car dealers -- they explicitly did not want us to autocomplete some values because that might remind applicants that answers would be checked.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caeb923f77b21e2486ed1b64f5c179df", "text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4806432231f19496e6b52cb6319b38f3", "text": "As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69785cfa56e360777df4467d5a7e57aa", "text": "Well, if you can get a loan for 3.8% and reliably invest for 7% returns, then you should borrow as much as you possibly can - the whole employment/existing loan situation doesn't even enter into it! But as they say, if something is too good to be true, it probably isn't (true). The 7-8% return are not guaranteed at all, but the 3.8% interest is. And while we're at it, 3.8% for an unsecured loan sounds pretty damn low, I would be really doubtful about that. I mean, why would the bank do that if they could instead invest the money for 7-8%?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2030d051b9a4283cf0200420312b9693", "text": "The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone.", "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": "c38fdb9c7f76677a4614faf0eaf2598a", "text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "666debe67dd0fd4ebc35e1abff7339dd", "text": "One way a lot of people bypass the pattern trading equity requirement is to open multiple brokerage accounts. You have $10k, put $5k in one and $5k in another. Although I don't recommend it!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "32e71fb321d39a1fceb84c0481f32a5c", "text": "Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14dc35868b7480da0985d6b8c5fec786", "text": "\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45110418c6c3d820f2eec63227754dd6", "text": "\"If you have at least $25,000, Wells Fargo is the place to be, as you get 100 free trades per account. I have three investment accounts with them and get 100 free trades in each a year, though I only ever actually use 10-20. i can't vouch for their phone service as I've never needed it, but free is very hard to beat in the \"\"value for money\"\" department. Update: Apparently in some states the requirement is $50,000. However, they count 10% of your mortgage as well as all deposit and investment accounts toward that balance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18543e60700a8898c04bf944bba4737f", "text": "As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e29195a125f800f05e4931e59d0e7e93", "text": "\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\"", "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": "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": "92174efaea066aa7b16d666a6d03c5b8", "text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0a671734512500e733a71357cfd6b3b", "text": "If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "973f7eacf416c4b3e28ab38eeeb4fdda", "text": "\"I recommend a Roth IRA. At your age you could turn 25K into a million and never pay taxes on these earnings. Of course there are yearly limits (5.5k) on the amount your can contribute to a Roth IRA account. If you haven't filed your taxes this year yet ... you can contribute 5.5K for last year and 5.5K for this year. Open two accounts at a discount brokerage firm. Trades should be about $10 or less per. Account one ... Roth IRA. Account two a brokerage account for the excess funds that can't be placed in the Roth IRA. Each year it will be easy transfer money into the Roth from this account. Be aware that you can't transfer stocks from brokerage acct to Roth IRA ... only cash. You can sell some stocks in brokerage and turn that into cash to transfer. This means settling up with the IRS on any gains/losses on that sale. Given your situation you'd likely have new cash to bring to table for the Roth IRA anyway. Invest in stocks and hold them for the long term. Do a google search for \"\"motley fool stock advisor\"\" and join. This is a premium service that picks two stocks to invest in each month. Invest small amounts (say $750) in each stock that they say you should buy. They will also tell you when to sell. They also give insights into why they selected the stock and why they are selling (aka learning experience). They pick quality companies. So if the economy is down you will still own a quality company that will make it through the storm. Avoid the temptation to load up on one stock. Follow the small amount rule mentioned above per stock. Good luck, and get in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c10b2d23beea4ec3e15b5f62854008", "text": "I would never trade after hours and I have 30 years of trading experience. It is a very volatile emotion driven market without a lot of the big players that arbitrage wrong pricing. If I were you I would simply use limit orders you input while the market is closed. If you want to get kute you can put in low-ball offers (and vice versa) to see if they get filled in the volatility at market open. Then check in (when?) when you wake up (or before you go to bed, etc) and revise the limit if not filled. In other words don't 'trade'. Know what your company is worth and put in orders that reflect that.", "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": "0c09988011d193a13211bcb4d3109c7d", "text": "Sharpe ratio can work but is often too complex for retail traders. Consider using R-Multiples, where R is the amount risked on the trade. If you're risking 100 and you make 200, that's a 2R trade. There's no right R multiple and it's dependent on your trading style. Van Tharp's books help describe it better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80e8a3b98c99786bb08a6abaf46fe10f", "text": "Well, sorry to hear about your struggles! For your question, $15,000 is sadly not enough money to build a career on investing for yourself, if you’re referring to the stock market. Unfortunately you need I believe $25,000 to even have a day trading account, plus the best investors in the world probably net 5-10% which is only tops $2,500 per year! On the other hand, $15,000 maybe you could use an FHA loan and buy a small condo that you could renovate and flip. FHA lenders only require 3.5% down plus closing costs. I would need more information on what type of investing you’re referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4e020ecbb12d4579e669c3e5f2d283", "text": "You are looking for arbitrage, not in real terms, and you may lose heavily. Big banks would suck out all profit before you get a chance to react. There are thousands of algorithmic trading systems in banks, which specifically predict such situations and try to make money from such moves. If you can invest in such a system, probably you can make a killing, else best is to forget about it. Remember that somebody before you has surely thought about it and put a system in place, so that somebody else cannot make money out of it before he/she does.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "75aa836bc1953b760977b22d48272ce3", "text": "\"Your math is correct. These kind of returns are possible in the capital markets. (By the way, Google Finance shows something completely different for $CANV than my trading console in ThinkorSwim, ToS shows a high of $201, but I believe there may have been some reverse splits that are not accurately reflected in either of these charts) The problems with this strategy are liquidity and timing. Let's talk about liquidity, because that is a greater factor here than the random psychological factors that would have affected you LONG LONG before your $1,000 allowance was worth a million dollars. If you bought $1000 worth of this stock at $.05 share, this would have been 20,000 shares. The week of October 11th, 2011, during the ENTIRE WEEK only 5,000 shares were traded. From this alone, you can see that it would have been impossible for you to even acquire 20,000 shares, for yourself at $.05 because there was nobody to sell them to you. We can't even look at the next week, because there WERE NO TRADES WHATSOEVER, so we have to skip all the way to November 11th, where indeed over 30,000 shares were traded. But this pushed the price all the way up to $2.00, again, there was no way you could have gotten 20,000 shares at $.05 So now, lets talk about liquidation of your shares. After several other highs and lows in the $20s and $30s, are you telling me that after holding this stock for 2 years you WOULDN'T have taken a $500,000 profit at $25.00 ? We are talking about someone that is investing with $1,000 here. I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think \"\"hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!\"\" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bdbbc9daf376e89634e3866c91d926", "text": "\"And now it is at about $3. Many times \"\"skeletons\"\" are bought and inflated for various reasons. Some are legitimate (for example a private business merging into a defunct but public corporation to avoid wasting resources on going public), some are not (mainly pump-and-dump scams that are using \"\"skeletons\"\"). I don't know what was the case here (probably speculation based on the new marijuana laws in the US), but clearly the inflated price was completely unjustified since it went crashing down.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a0f9c638a7c7fec5710781b49a98dfc8", "text": "The math is wrong. $16m grows to $72b over 44 years at 21% return (exact return is (72000/16)^(1/44) - 1 = 0.21067). At one percentage point lower return, i.e. 20%, $16m grows to $50b (16m x 1.21^44 = 49.985b). In that case you would have paid about 30 percent of your gain in fees. Still a lot, but not severe. Even the calculation of percent fees is wrong in the article!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46209eafc0c865103c6e95b81c4e4564", "text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c8be22845f9a82bb3b4eba4039e5b34", "text": "The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c59227ca475715a45c6c73bc1bac7816", "text": "The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6", "text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a921214f64cac481e46f2455f46acd", "text": "It is a good enough approximation. With a single event you can do it your way and get a better result, but imagine that the $300 are spread over a certain period with $10 contribution each time? Then recalculating and compounding will be a lot of work to do. The original ROI formula is averaging the ROI by definition, so why bother with precise calculations of averages that are imprecise by definition, when you can just adjust the average without losing the level of precision? 11.4 and 11.3 aren't significantly different, its immaterial.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd", "text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)", "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": "a990852a5fbc94b6c23aa4c32112c7c2", "text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "193fcf22ed5e553406178908183e95ff", "text": "To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4dea673d39dae97fa909527a80f3e36", "text": "\"My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse. I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a \"\"rich keep getting richer ...\"\" component here, while schlubs like me get nada. The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows. For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should. What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7", "text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe2602216d25f7f2f97e3625c46ea0b", "text": "\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6263bcb569ac81cf55099b6957a8bc54", "text": "\"Essentially, your question is \"\"lump sum vs DCA\"\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "10816707b5c52aac08723ba5d56c1ca8", "text": "The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca27c6f1bc2ed1bf1dc25c0d7c8071e", "text": "You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California. (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.) Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e0e1da3c3c3547ae5780093afe39e3fb", "text": "Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76dbbced33adaccadc525e0a0ba9e288", "text": "\"The ultimate purpose of Case-Schiller is to build contracts that you can use to stop worrying about this, for a price. You or your lender might buy cash settled put options based on the index, and hope that if your home falls in value, the your options become \"\"in the money\"\" to make up the shortfall. The major problem that I can see with this is finding people to take the other side of that contract. Renters would be the primary candidates, but Americans are on average so overweight in real estate that there really isn't anyone underexposed to real estate who would benefit from diversification, and the tax advantage will give people far cheaper avenues address this. Viewed in this light, your question has a sort of obvious answer: Case-Schiller is historical data, and you need to know about the future historical data. Case-Schiller can't do it alone, but you can use futures markets to predict it. Problem you'll have is that the market itself will optimize this temporal trade: if there's a market drop anticipated, the market will charge you more for market drop insurance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1695261b4ee40cb33966686a30309dac", "text": "Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aeedb63daae9da4a3c6b2d11dc5bf41", "text": "\"Wall Street: Unloading onto the muppets, BRB... On a serious note, WF has a TBTF put on them. The shorting opportunity likely already came and went. The central banks have issued a global put on equities and real estate for about the last decade, they're unlikely to now say, \"\"oops, our bad, we'll retract that put starting with WF\"\" over this. The associated market disruption isn't worth the positive electorate optics. They'll opt to try to surgically fix the scandal; find and fire highest executives feasible, pay a fine, move on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4348abec574ecdf1a71aa09c0d19696", "text": "\"First, it's much safer to be shorting stocks over $5 than stocks under $5. I use 3 indicators to show that a stock has topped out and about to drop. Key is the timing cause the initial drop is often the biggest. More close you get in at the top, the higher the risk. Using 1D Charts ONLY: - MACD Indicator: I use the histogram, when it reaches a peak height, and the next day it is down 1 \"\"Step\"\". If you wait til the MACD lines cross, you are pretty late IMHO. Need to get in earlier. Timing is everything. - RSI(15) - Needs to topped out and above 67 meaning, \"\"Over bought\"\" - Do not buy when RSI is high above 70. Often stocks go on a Run up when RSI is over 70! - I use Stoch RSI or CCI to confirm my status on RSI. I like to see that all 3 indicators agree. This gives me a 75% chance that the stock will drop. It may take a day or 2.. so you need patience.\"", "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": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2", "text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2d062f068f98ea49fdcfd0b131105c", "text": "The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "402a87f41604e564b95a985b926fb3a2", "text": "I definitely get that, my company has been really big on ILS’s lately, so in a meeting the other day I was looking at ways to short Cat Bonds.... The problem is you’d have to offer a big premium to someone that you sell the risk too since the whole industry is having to do that now. And on risky areas like Oklahoma or California for earthquakes I couldn’t imagine the premium you’d have to pay since the risk is up front and present. If you don’t want to pay the premium and choose some risk that isn’t as foreseen you should probably have a good method of evaluating that risk. Which is the point I have ran into in my quest to short ILSs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fc4819252bbfa4014d3241c01a80a7", "text": "You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5e71508fdf5bcc1d535cac18c15e692", "text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"", "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": "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": "d75b5516f8f79c5b756a560d56d7a8cf", "text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06ede82fcda97e4b0564b4b59c218a8", "text": "\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "47f681c53204da52d55b8b93905710db", "text": "I don't know what you are on about, as most online brokers should offer standard brokerage without margin. As trading with magin is considered more risky by most (especially if you don't know what you are doing), so one would have to fill out additional application forms and possibly undergo some training before getting a margin account open. A quick search on the net provided some examples, here is one - IG, who provide 3 type of accounts - Spread Betting and CFDs (both leveraged) and Stockbroking (which is non-leveraged).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879829269fafc9539d2c2b2cd59c4337", "text": "Most UK stock brokers don't require or allow margin trading. A quick web search for 'UK share dealing comparison' shows entries from money.co.uk and moneysupermarket.com who both provide lists of different brokers, e.g. Barclays, Hargraves Lansdown, IG Share Dealing, The Share Centre, TD Direct, Interactive Investor, YouInvest, etc. Some of the UK banks also provide a share dealing service, from quickly looking at their websites, Barclays, HSBC and Halifax all appear to provide share dealing services.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7902d34995e04afaddc5d3d0c652861", "text": "You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa1fd4c1ea9ab614af95103a1847a75c", "text": "Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f8b2de9570f33646c62ec89ff9eaf61f", "text": "To start trading at a minimum you need 3 things; Bank Account: This again is not must, but most preferred to transact. Quite a few broker would insist on this. Demat Account: This is must as all shares on NSE are held electronically. The custodians are CSDL or NSDL both Government entities. These don't offer services directly to customer, but via other financial institutions like Banks and Large Brokers. Broker Account: This is required to buy or sell securities. If you are only buying in IPO, this is not required as one can directly participate in IPO and Broker is not involved. However if you want to buy and sell on NSE you would need a broker account. Quite a few financial institutes offer all 3 services or 2 services [Demat/Broker]. The fee structure and online service etc are differentiators. You can take a look at options and decide the best one to use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7c14786c176cbd17c34e31ecd9fd51", "text": "Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying. However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account. I don't know why...probably a legal reason. You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account. If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a338ebdb92ecbd338fe1fd5cc1f2582", "text": "Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3b29e8075a13386c894ae62e8f3d167", "text": "According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1581182a845bc22f273501fd9e8568c0", "text": "API wise there's just one at the retail level: Interactive Brokers (India). Brokerage is high though - 3.5 bps for F&O and 5 bps for cash. I've used Sharekhan (good, can get to 2 bps brokerage, trading client software, no API). Also used multiple other brokerages, and am advising a new one, Zerodha http://www.zerodha.com. API wise the brokers don't provide it easily to retail, though I've worked with direct access APIs at an institutional level.", "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": "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": "ccda9ff7d29469ea162262ae51d604a9", "text": "A CFD broker will let you open a trade on margin as long as your account balance is more than the margin required on all your open trades. If the required margin increases within a certain percentage of your account balance, you will get a margin call. If you then don't deposit more funds or close losing trades out, the broker will close all your trades. Note: Your account balance is the remaining funds you have left to open new trades with. I always use stop loss orders with all my open trades, and because of this my broker reduces the amount of margin required on each trade. This allows me to have more open trades at the one time without increasing my funds. Effects of a Losing Trade on Margin Say I have an account balance of $2,000 and open a long trade in a share CFD of 1,000 CFDs with a share price of $10 and margin of 10%. The face value of the shares would be $10,000, but my initial margin would be $1,000 (10% of $10,000). If I don't place a stop loss and the price falls to $9, I would have lost $1,000 and my remaining margin would now be $900 (10% of $9,000). So I would have $100 balance remaining in my account. I would probably receive a margin call to deposit more funds in or close out my trade. If I don't respond the broker will close out my position before my balance gets to $0. If instead I placed a stop loss at say $9.50, my initial margin might be reduced to $500. As the price drops to $9.60 I would have lost $400 and my remaining margin would now only be $100, with my account balance at $1,500. When the price drops to $9.50 I will get stopped out, my trade will be closed and I would have lost $500, with my account balance still at $1,500. Effects of a Winning Trade on Margin Say I have the same account balance as before and open the same trade but this time the price moves up. If I don't place a stop loss and the price goes up to $11, I would have made a $1,000 profit and my remaining margin will now be $1,100 (10% of $11,000). So my account balance would now be $2,000 + $1,000 - $1,100 = $1,900. If I had placed a stop loss at say $9.50 again and the price moves up to $10.50, I would have made a profit of $500 and my margin would now be $1,000. My account balance would be $2,000 + $500 - $1,000 = $1,500. However, if after the price went up to $10.50 I also moved my stop loss up to $10, then I would have $500 profit and only $500 margin. So my balance in this case would be $2,000 + $500 - $500 = $2,000. So by using stop losses as part of your risk management you can reduce the margin used from your balance which will allow you to open more trades without any extra funds deposited into your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae3d00b16e6b5fe651edd058e2a69145", "text": "\"If you don't have a margin account, then you will not have margin calls. You need a margin account if you wish to \"\"buy on margin\"\", to sell stocks \"\"short\"\", or to sell options, or maybe some other esoteric things I have not thought of. If you don't do those things, then you do not need a margin account and will not get margin calls. In your example, it doesn't sound like margin has been used, If you deposit $20 and used it to buy $20 of stock and it then falls to $5, \"\"they\"\" did not lose the money, you did. But if no margin was used, then no margin call would result.\"", "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": "980cecc6af873f36e39625d078eb2647", "text": "You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2722f69315341259b6dfc8053db89d61", "text": "Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42f4705784c34d846e33a6b4573f63af", "text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fb94e8d47ea5630d5154ec36535c97f", "text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5734b807aee32ecde45ad6c7b1473de", "text": "You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "16eec6bc9a13b3023ebff90f47c4410f", "text": "I recently came across bitcoin, it is what I was really looking for at the time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "890e8e0a93a34ffc61874715ecaac7a2", "text": "\"You say you want a more \"\"stable\"\" system. Recall from your introductory economics courses that money has three roles: a medium of exchange (here is $, give me goods), a unit of account (you owe me $; the business made $ last year), and a store of value (I have saved $ for the future!). I assume that you are mostly concerned with the store-of-value role being eroded due to inflation. But first consider that most people still want regular currency, so as a medium of exchange or accounting unit anything would face an uphill battle. If you discard that role for your currency, and only want to store value with it, you could just buy equities and commodities and baskets of currencies and debt in a brokerage account (possibly using mutual funds) to store your value. Trillions of dollars' worth of business takes place this way every year already. Virtual currency was a bit of a dot-com bubble thing. The systems which didn't go completely bust and are still around have been beset by money-laundering, and otherwise remain largely an ignored niche. An online fiat currency has the same basic problem that another currency has. You need to trust the central bank not to create more money and cause inflation (or even just abscond with the funds... or go bankrupt / get sued). Perhaps the Federal Reserve may be jerking us around on that front right now.... they're still a lot more believable than a small private institution. Some banks might possibly be trustworthy enough to launch a currency, but it's hard to see why they'd bother (it can't be a big profit center, because people aren't willing to pay too much to just use money.) And an online currency that's backed by commodities (e.g. gold) is going to be subject to potentially violent swings in the prices of commodities. Imagine getting a loan out for your house, denominated in terms of e-gold, and then the price of gold triples. Ouch?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "929c9780f0983ec66c646c287e974ea4", "text": "\"Congratulations! You see the problem. You can't get away from unstable currencies. The other problem is that the US will shut down anything that appears to be providing a replacement for the US Dollar. Once a token or medallion or gift certificate or whatever starts being used outside the confines of one business or one network of businesses, it will be shut down, quickly. It happened with Las Vegas gambling tokens. Another more recent attempt was with the Liberty Dollar, gold and silver coins and certificates that not only had precious metal backing, but whose proponents encouraged taking them to retailers and paying with them as if they were US Dollars. There were other problems with this idea, but it was the competitive stature of the Liberty dollar that got the headquarters raided and the main site shut down. Basically, all signs point toward dealing with currencies and their state of being systematically eroded over time. If you do find one that appears to exist, be wary, because the rules can change at any time, and the \"\"money\"\" will be nowhere near as liquid as a proper currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ee003abb9d3d266789513d9d7673856", "text": "\"Edit: I discovered Bitcoin a few months after I posted this answer. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this question to review it, particularly the myths page that dispels much of the FUD. Original answer: Although it is not online, as a concept the Totnes Pound may be of interest to you. I live quite close to this village (in the UK) and the system it promotes does work well. According to the Transition Town Totnes website this means that it is \"\"a community in a process of imagining and creating a future that addresses the twin challenges of diminishing oil and gas supplies and climate change , and creates the kind of community that we would all want to be part of.\"\" If you are looking for a starting place to introduce a new type of currency, perhaps in response to over-dependence on oil and global trade, then reading about the Transition Towns initiative could provide you with the answers you're looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e120a8aa8686f6e32f4e42440d7ee222", "text": "I'm the equivalent of the FED at ROBLOX. I run a virtual economy there worth millions of dollars. Even though we are in the business of printing our own money, we've seen much more stability in our currency than in the USD. It actually appreciates over time. I don't think it would make a good investment though, nor would any of the online virtual currencies that I am aware of.", "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": "81d0c81787160b143b2e02fe98f99bfd", "text": "This site lets people deposit gold into an account. Once you have an account setup you can pay others in gold online. I haven't used it or know of anyone who has so I cannot provide any feedback to how well it works.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6ffed1ba7c7a5456be4234ae36bda59c", "text": "Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65c0e3b68efbc4fd3788f304e00d70b7", "text": "\"I'm currently using You Need A Budget for this. It lets you track spending my category and \"\"save\"\" money in particular accounts from month to month. They also have some strong opinions about how one should manage one's cashflow, so check it out to see if it'll work for you. It's neither web-based nor free, but the licensing terms are very reasonable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a", "text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f192e3451471bd51285576936d970749", "text": "If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d81d7a88f068400691d7daa7e77615", "text": "I think it's interesting to look at bitcoin not as a get-rich quick scheme, but rather a tool to study socio-economics through looking how areas in developing countries view this type of model (and the entire world at large of course). The entire crypto-coin scene has a variety of different algorithms which replicate different monetary policies to promote the most value and high functioning societies. *For example: dogecoin was meant as a quick laugh but has now developed into an inflation based coin to encourage high velocity through tipping. This micropayment model and friendly community hope to gain adoption through spreading it far and wide*. Bitcoin looks at the properties that made gold a useful state-less trade asset and tried to adapt that to the web. It solved traditional problems which made this impossible before without a central party and thus now experiments and studies can be done. Who knows what happens. Gavin, the chief engineer of the bitcoin core development group says, &gt; I still say that it's an experiment, and the whole thing could implode. Coming from the guy who is literally making the edits to the code, I think it's safe to take off the wary of it being used to scam people and instead look at it from a more academic light to see what could be gleaned from bitcoin to improve current institutions.", "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": "e24bf7a39a85a27540fd6df3267e7eb0", "text": "\"Excellent question. I'm not aware of one. I was going to say \"\"go visit some personal finance blogs\"\" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions. That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time. Seems like you'd do all right by doing a \"\"--bank name-- sucks\"\" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money. If they're up front, they'll answer you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd78bc9c9eaffdab15fa29d6837f52a5", "text": "I can personally recommend MoneyWell. I've been using it for about a month now, and version 1.5 that was just released is a great upgrade from the previous version. The developer was very responsive during the open beta period, and from what I understand an iPhone version is in the works. (and no, I don't work for the publisher!) That aside, I've used a few other packages. I tried out iBank, which was fairly nice, but the account downloading functionality left a lot to be desired. I come from a MS Money background, and I am used to a seamless, reliable download scheme, and iBank's was (unfortunately) neither. Otherwise the interface was very nice. I had settled on MoneyDance before I found MoneyWell, and it's a pretty nice package. Unfortunately it's a Java application and doesn't adhere to most OSX interface practices. While the account downloading is substantially better than iBank's, the ugly interface made moving away from it fairly easy once I found something that had feature parity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38cd1a59d0f8f14eff54b8eda1bcd1c2", "text": "\"Thinkorswim's ThinkDesktop platform allows you to replay a previous market day if you wish. You can also use paper money in stocks, options, futures, futures options, forex, etc there. I really can't think of any other platform that allows you to dabble around in so many products fictionally. And honestly, if all that \"\"make[s] the learning experience a bit more complicated\"\" and demotivates you, well thats probably a good thing for your sake.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26", "text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaa1d8c94a118a1ba028060fb12e85c4", "text": "\"1. As I said, the above is not actually anything like a genuine history of how money emerged, it's an explain-it-to-a-five-year-old parable to answer \"\"where does the money go in an economic contraction?\"\" 2. It's also not defense/endorsement/apology for any particular set of policies or historical theory of money. It's a picture-book describing the workings of an internal combustion engine using cartoon characters, not a treatise on the social and environmental implications of American car-culture. That said, in the parable, the reasons why the simplified caricatures in the town chose to accept the fiat currency are pretty straightforward, and are actually explained: - They were previously using a system of a whole bunch of separate, privately-issued currencies, each with complex and hard-to-evaluate credit risks (Bob's potato certificate versus Jane's Potato certificate versus your apple-certificate versus my deer certificate). This was causing problems and confusion about how much any given certificate was actually worth. - The system proposed was proposed in a way that was *at least* as credible as the best existing system. - Last but not least, they accepted the new currency for *exactly the same reason* that you accept dollar, euros, or whatever: because everyone else does. There was no law preventing any of them from still trading apple IOUs (in fact, we still traded them, later in the example, except denominated in loddars). I could have asked you for the last note to denominated in apples, but that would probably have been harder to trade than the currency that everyone else is using. I said I wouldn't get into the gold-standard debate, and I won't, and here's why: the debate hinges entirely and solely on whether you believe that a \"\"good\"\" fiat currency is possible and realistically sustainable. If you do, then fiat currency makes a lot more sense in every respect. If you don't, then fiat currency is always just a catastrophe waiting to happen. My parable shows the mechanics of how money works. It doesn't say whether the system is good or bad, or whether they should have accepted the fiat system proposed, or held out for a better one, or rejected it altogether. You can argue that internal combustion engines are bad, or that much better alternatives are available, or that nobody should use them, but that doesn't make a description of they work incorrect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fcdba0856699d55e25ac1188f0d2b4a", "text": "Bitcoin could work fairly well. Each site can just give you a wallet to dump money into. Can also do micro-payments where you could pay per-article. With a shared private key on a wallet you keep topped up, they could remove the money as you browse. I can imagine businesses that sell you hard-drive space based on the amount you use rather than a cap, calculate the cost of transmitting each packet of data. You can have one program to manage all the wallets for all your sites. But it would need more penetration before that happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a7daaffd734a8e08623aa63eb141ba9", "text": "I know you've already lost interest, but i just wanted to respond to this: &gt;money is a store of value No, it is not. Money is a very poor store of value. Money is intended as a means to transfer value from one to another. &gt;You appear to be afraid of what would happen if people were allowed to voluntarily choose what money to use, without government interference. I repeatedly encouraged you to use alternative currencies, i don't know where you get this from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "970074e19cac1c9a7b1f4c54d07b115c", "text": "You know what? Pay cash, but ask for a discount. And something fairly hefty. Don't be afraid to bargain. The discount will be worth more than the interest you'd get on the same amount of money. And if the salesman doesn't give you a decent discount, ask to speak to the manager. And if that doesn't work, try another store. Good luck with it!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a", "text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ce312654651c17ef797718657bfc4f8", "text": "\"Future tax increases on dividends are likely. The Wall Street Journal says. \"\"The millions of Americans who receive dividend income ... need to begin adjusting their investment strategy accordingly.\"\" (ref) \"\"Last week the Senate Budget Committee passed a fiscal 2011 budget resolution that includes an increase in the top tax rate on dividends to 39.6% from the current 15%—a 164% increase.\"\" ... \"\"You can expect fewer businesses either to offer or increase dividend payouts.\"\"\"", "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": "472d859ac9e683dca392918550d040e1", "text": "I had read a book about finance, and it had mentioned that you can gain big profits from investing in the best companies in the most boring markets, like the funeral business for example. These markets are slow growing, but the companies pay a good dividend. Many books recommend investing in dividends because of the compound growth and stable income. Remember that at the end of the day, you should put the same amount of research into buying a stock as you would buying the entire company. With that being said, you may find a great company that may or may not offer dividends, but it should not be of great significance since you feel you are buying into a great company at a fair price. Though dividend growth is a great tool to use to see if a company is doing well.", "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": "7b1f115f7e7215d23a3d4e254c803a6e", "text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98", "text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "709d76dc519d425b8b5da7e48547fd43", "text": "\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28fd1acdbc2eb2164ba1402e0d88a13a", "text": "There are dividend newsletters that aggregate dividend information for interested investors. Other than specialized publications, the best sources for info are, in my opinion:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "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": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4", "text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d24cb9f4769b32ce990e3c75882230d5", "text": "The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7073c8abdac940794381ca8c2ea69bbd", "text": "You are comparing apples and oranges: the charts show the capital appreciation excluding dividends. If you include dividends and calculate a total return over that period you see VSMAX up 132% vs. FSEVX up 129%, i.e. quite close. That residual difference is possibly due to a performance difference between the two benchmarks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1e0b52faea7370ea2b0a4b35a7a7269", "text": "Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e144e276962b576070defb6e72a120e", "text": "If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21b0a09f26272db9528e08a4a7e3437a", "text": "\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191", "text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2aa8f9bc9b2fedb0eef66df8b2eea64f", "text": "Smaller markets can actually be more volatile so it's not a good idea to lower Graham's criteria for them. The only real adjustment possible is inflation adjustment. $100 million in 1973 United States works out to $500 million today based on the difference in CPI/Inflation from 1973. This number will be different for other markets where the rate of inflation since 1973 has been different. So the real question to ask is - what is to $100 million in the United States in 1973 worth today in your market? Source: http://www.serenitystocks.com/how-build-complete-benjamin-graham-portfolio", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa74b4578872b3d54c02ec58e7f4d678", "text": "If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e", "text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "debf58d3ff6093e3b7ff39acf901b0fd", "text": "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company, Those are income taxes right? So like, he's not saying he will be forced to fire people to maintain a viable business, he's saying he'll have to fire people to maintain his level of profits. Of course, less profit is still profit so he wouldn't *have* to fire people, he could keep running the business as it is and just make less money...but then how would he [build the biggest house in america??](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125666/)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90ed32b56190138860378694d266d676", "text": "\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \"\"minimum cash\"\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \"\"added value\"\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \"\"minimum cash levels\"\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d60e8694d9498ef8bffe8e020f24d0c", "text": "\"You're mixing up rhetoric (aka discussion and argument) with dialectic (the \"\"logical\"\" search for absolute truth). No essay about business could possibly be dialectic. Mine isn't. Paul Graham's certainly aren't. Therefore they are rhetoric, discussion and argument. And \"\"This person has much to gain if you do what he says\"\" is an absolutely valid argument. BTW - I'm self-taught. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend \"\"Thank You For Arguing.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b7ae5f605423f615cc561f3821f77b", "text": "\"That's not how monkeysphere as a concept works. It's a very specific concept related to the total size of our \"\"active\"\" social network, it has nothing to do with generalizing an entire business to it's CEO. The monkeysphere holds that we have a maximum number of social connections we can maintain with any relevant level of intimacy and social cohesion. It holds that unit cohesion breaks down when the organization exceeds that threshold, because members can no longer keep track of all other members as individuals. It's an excellent HR management theory, and one that's well backed, but has absolutely nothing to do with the context you're using it in.\"", "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": "db7590349eccdd1023720cb028fb97e3", "text": "Here is something I have always wondered. Companies are required to go public after they have a certain number of investors. Used to be 500 now 2000. Can a company that has been forced to go public, then be made private again? How?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b9389780145eb52c4bdd0b467240b0", "text": "There would be a catastrophic collapse in the financial industry. Not exaggerating. Every bank is a company that's technically held by another company, a bank holding company. Every investment firm typically has anywhere from dozens to thousands of separate little companies (depending on the size of the overall firm) that it uses to manage money and risk. There's ways to try and solve agency problems and moral hazard problems in corporate governance, but disallowing corporations from creating wholly owned subsidiaries is not the way to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7087e71e1c3391d3fe316d13337cd21b", "text": "In addition to the GE move, Buffett's firm also added a large share of Synchrony, equalling about $520.7 in value, and a $418.1 million stake in Store Capital. So, they bought one regular sized share? This is Why BI-journalists doesnt work in IB...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb3b9bb265c9d83d3cffe6da009ddea2", "text": "If I recall correctly off of their quarterly reporting, their major expense was Admin/Overhead. I think it comprised of half of their expenses. My disclaimer is that I just took a quick look at their financial report and might be remembering incorrectly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0eaa489227b57eec5f75fc86beefaa81", "text": "You are absolutely correct, incorporation and the fiduciary responsibility that comes with it almost always leads to a sacrifice in product quality and long-term business principles. I always think of the difference between McDonalds and In-n-Out hamburgers as examples of where each road leads.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d5ded6ae17a4337f390d60c2da294e", "text": "\"Company Distribution is attempting to show a histogram of how many companies fall within a given range so you can visualize the number of companies that meet a certain parameter. For example if you move the \"\"Market Cap\"\" sliders so the minimum slider is just before the large rise in the distribution and move the maximum slider so it is just after the fall off in distribution, you can see that most companies have a market cap between ~5700 and ~141B.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4521934ec85b9804d0873a7241a44ee", "text": "Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits. Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material. For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efcd1142c1cd872b0c2498a900e359a0", "text": "\"By issuing additional equity. In this case, the pie isn't \"\"fixed,\"\" it's getting bigger. Now, to avoid lawsuits and other potential issues (some of which may be unavoidable), the owner will likely need to subscribe for additional equity himself. Example: 100 shares outstanding. 51 to owner, 49 to 2 others. That 49 will have to equal 20%, as none of their shares are being sold (likely). This means total shares will need to be increased to 245. Subtract 49 from that number: 196 Marcus gets half of that at a determined price. 98 Owner must increase his stake from 51 to 98 shares. To do so, he'll need to contribute additional cash for the same price Marcus gets in on. That could be expensive.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c90a762ebb942f384ca71a15e2fbba46", "text": "\"they are purchasing the company\"\" is this correct? Yes this is correct. If I purchase a \"\"company\"\" here in Australia, I also purchase its assets and liabilities Yes that is correct. How can it be NIL? How can it be legal? The value of shares [or shareholders] is Assets - liabilities. Generally a healthy company has Assets that are greater than its liabilities and hence the company has value and shareholders have value of the shares. In case of TEN; the company has more liabilities; even after all assets are sold off; there is not enough money left out to pay all the creditors. Hence the company is in Administration. i.e. it is now being managed by Regulated Australian authority. The job of the administrator is to find out suitable buyers so that most of the creditors are paid off and if there is surplus pay off the shareholder or arrive at a suitable deal. In case of TEN; the liabilities are so large that no one is ready to buy the company and the deal of CBS will also mean nothing gets paid to existing shareholders as the value is negative [as the company is separate legal entity, they can't recover the negative from shareholders]. Even the current creditors may not be paid in full and may get a pro-rated due and may lose some money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922cfb7dfced64ee1eb794c4ae2d7e28", "text": "The Bible of fundamental analysis was written by Graham and Dodd, and is titled Security Analysis. If you don't know the name Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet was his student and attribute his own success to Graham. If Security Analysis is a bit too intense for you, Graham also wrote The Intelligent Investor which is probably a better starting point.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8dbf1e3859ea0f37d09621daca437b12", "text": "\"I can name far more non-real estate millionaires than those who are. That statistic isn't only not valid, it's not even close. Update: The correct quote is \"\"90% of all Millionaires become so through owning Real Estate\"\" and it's attributed to Andrew Carnegie. Given that he was born in 1835, I can imagine that his statement was true at he time, but not today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8b8662496d3ff734aa0b957108abe71", "text": "\"This quote has it almost backwards. Thomas J. Stanley's recent book (he's one of the duo who researched and wrote about The Millionaire Next Door) claims that the top occupation of millionaires is \"\"business owner / self-employed\"\" (28%). \"\"Real estate investor\"\" is lumped in with \"\"other\"\" (9%), and if the ordering is correct in the list, it's no more than 2% of the total. (source)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72d8ae713e16d5c9e86727c71e0c4b1", "text": "78.84% of statistics are made up on the spot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b06fcb490c0ad1c25fd7df94477fd28", "text": "Most millionaires became millionaires by being very frugal and living well below their means, all the time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e0d5da798f1bcf302989d8b0d01cc12e", "text": "\"Private equity firms have a unique structure: The general partners (GP's) of the firm create funds and manage the investments of those funds. Limited partners (LP's) contribute the capital to the funds, pay fees to the GP's, and then make money when the funds' assets grow. I believe the article is saying that ultra high net worth individuals participate in the real estate market by hiring someone to act as a general partner and manage the real estate assets. They and their friends contribute the cash and get shares in the resulting fund. Usually this GP/LP structure is used when the funds purchase or invest in private companies, which is why it is referred to as \"\"private equity structure,\"\" but the same structure can be used to purchase and manage pools of real estate or any other investment asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74a8f28c7eb659da142b94cda4f6a897", "text": "Isn't that a deduction mostly used by the top 1%? There seem to be mostly 2 types of people, those who own many homes, And those that rent them... I always thought the mortgage interest deduction was used substantially more by the wealthy than the middle class... (Luxury homes also offer higher deductions right?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8031cefc62322a4ac0c426c8089c9342", "text": "If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires. My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company. It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger. Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows. After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed after striking rich somewhere. If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1649617dc85a5c9b69fe9840f4e87f17", "text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a6d40bb337ba3ee5de2c2edec0be53", "text": "Not really. I benefit from the very rich and so do you. 2/3 of the 1% are self-made or semi-self made billionaires, and we all benefit from the technologies, businesses, and organisations etc. they have created and continue to create. They are some of the most productive people on earth. Secondly, by investing their assets - they enable other's to get investments for their businesses to grow, because they are willing to take risks, most of us can't or won't. You can rob them once for a small time gain, many countries have attempted this, and then found out with the smartest people disincentivized to work, the country grinds to a halt, and slips towards poverty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24b82d946ddcb53abe69edbe767f483b", "text": "\"&gt; Asset prices are high and not matched by real world performance. See, I know a lot of people are saying this, but I'm not entirely sure this is true. Even if some tech stocks are \"\"artificially\"\" boosting the market to crazy levels, can you say it's not warranted? The potential for many are far beyond what we see today. I don't see the current tech stock boom being unable to fulfill like the 1990s boom, and subsequent bust. The infrastructure and logistics weren't there in 1999. They are now. Beyond tech, businesses are doing pretty well. Up and down, earnings reports are looking good. Stocks are high, but still somewhat based on real numbers. Same could be said for real estate. The demand is real, the prices are high, but it's based on demand. The danger is what we're missing, just like in 2008. Chances are, there is a fiction out there. Maybe the fiction is in these tech stocks. Maybe it is on mortgages again. I'm not seeing it. There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today. In fact, I've seen more people trying to figure out how the heck the next correction will come, and nobody really can answer it. At this rate, there might not be a \"\"built in\"\" cause, and might come externally like Trump going nuts and launching nukes, or another terrorist attack.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e237eca5c9c774578b10e20a3e6b594c", "text": "The decline in what kind of house you get for $600k is why a lot of people making $100k don't feel rich. I'm amazed at how many houses in my area go for that much, especially when you consider that only 5% of families have the income to consider that affordable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e59d3ee39f5427e4e9cec68ac43462da", "text": "I don’t understand why people think its okay to write these kinds of articles that mislead the public. First of all, wage mobility in the US is always fluctuating. People move in and out of the 1% all within a lifetime. Secondly, go to Bls.gov there are statistics showing that MOST of the 1% are actually self-made first generation millionaires. Though coming from a wealthy family helps set up the child to a better future it isn’t typically because of inherited money, but is because of the fact that richer parents better educate their kids in FINANCIAL LITERACY. Just remember its easier to spend the wealth empire that your parents built than it is to actually maintain it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e6968d25044482947fb299c8d5000f", "text": "\"The first red flag of your \"\"facts\"\": One of the article's sources is an Atlantic article with the title, \"\"Entrepreneurship: The Ultimate White Privilege?\"\". The article rants on and on about politically correct SJW nonsense. Red flag 2: The Andrew J. Oswald \"\"What Makes an Entrepreneur?\"\" study that is cited to prove access to capital is a helping factor (Your daddy money argument) is from 1998. A hell of a lot has changed since then. Forbes reported a 32% jump (up to 70%) of self-made millionaires from 1982 to 2012. Red flag 3: The article was trash, mainly used as a tool to attack \"\"white privileged males\"\". The article only said, \"\"Hey, look a study!\"\" and didn't mention any data. The only actual mention of data in the article is \"\"more than 80% of funding for new businesses comes from personal savings and friends and family.\"\" Well, yeah. That's where most businesses look for their first small investment. Actual facts: [60% of billionaires are self-made](https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593) [70%+ percent of millionaires are self-made](http://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/) Btw, thanks for the laugh. Didn't know anyone took Qz serious!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "913d6e60dc683f93657a78cf4adb14a9", "text": "Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "221da09473d75488fbfed0cc19d08d56", "text": "\"I'm sorry, but if one of your goals is to \"\"get the small house together at the manor\"\", you're already a huge success by almost the entire world's standards. I don't care if [this](https://gregzavitz.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1103-linden.jpg) is the \"\"manor\"\" and [this](https://www.theposhshedcompany.co.uk/uploads/products/listings/De_Lange_210317_2_-_Copy.jpg) is the \"\"small house\"\", you're still beating out A LOT of people on the ladder of success.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b", "text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "a4634d7a68d41488344228497ee382d2", "text": "Look, the richest guy I know personally is the first college grad in his family, and he is the first generation of natural-born citizens in his family. He worked (and lucked) his way from almost nothing to rich as fuck, but the fact that I happen to know him personally doesn't nullify his status as a statistical outlier.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d70b1f6ea23c653659e2ab13df81f468", "text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "420ae9fb9873153545613a339f6e6dda", "text": "The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e1be62ce02096d39859cc6bb774405f7", "text": "The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.", "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": "174500b2d286ea36587834083f1490ed", "text": "Different exchanges sometimes offer different order types, and of course have different trading fees. But once a trade is finished, it should not matter where it was executed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1", "text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9f1d97d08857ec75a4dae304f17d6bd", "text": "\"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment). I'm having a hard time believing that it was \"\"poorly argued.\"\" As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)). One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states: *\"\"I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.\"\"* I'm not here to argue for the paper. I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize. ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~ *Edit*: Thought I was responding to a different thread.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d2aec1de811964e2da70276232ae2eb", "text": "Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6d4a65012a0447327893fd782a79b46", "text": "Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d3c46645af4eaa9727fc0784df921fd", "text": "As you mentioned in the title, what you're asking about comes down to volatility. DCA when purchasing stock is one way of dealing with volatility, but it's only profitable if the financial instrument can be sold higher than your sunk costs. Issues to be concerned with: Let's suppose you're buying a stock listed on the NYSE called FOO (this is a completely fake example). Over the last six days, the average value of this stock was exactly $1.00Note 1. Over six trading days you put $100 per day into this stockNote 2: At market close on January 11th, you have 616 shares of FOO. You paid $596.29 for it, so your average cost (before fees) is: $596.29 / 616 = $0.97 per share Let's look at this including your trading fees: ($596.29 + $30) / 616 = $1.01 per share. When the market opens on January 12th, the quote on FOO could be anything. Patents, customer wins, wars, politics, lawsuits, press coverage, etc... could cause the value of FOO to fluctuate. So, let's just roll with the assumption that past performance is consistent: Selling FOO at $0.80 nets: (616 * $0.80 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $123.49 Loss Selling FOO at $1.20 nets: (616 * $1.20 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $107.90 Profit Every day that you keep trading FOO, those numbers get bigger (assuming FOO is a constant value). Also remember, even if FOO never changes its average value and volatility, your recoverable profits shrink with each transaction because you pay $5 in fees for every one. Speaking from experience, it is very easy to paper trade. It is a lot harder when you're looking at the ticker all day when FOO has been $0.80 - $0.90 for the past four days (and you're $300 under water on a $1000 portfolio). Now your mind starts playing nasty games with you. If you decide to try this, let me give you some free advice: Unless you have some research (such as support / resistance information) or data on why FOO is a good buy at this price, let's be honest: you're gambling with DCA, not trading. END NOTES:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a466255400ad63956a96c33886d5dda3", "text": "\"You don't \"\"deduct\"\" transaction fees, but they are included in your cost basis and proceeds, which will affect the amount of gain/loss you report. So in your example, the cost basis for each of the two lots is $15 (10$ share price plus $5 broker fee). Your proceeds for each lot are $27.50 (($30*2 - $5 )/2). Your gain on each lot is therefore $12.50, and you will report $12.50 in STCG and $12.50 in LTCG in the year you sold the stock (year 3). As to the other fees, in general yes they are deductible, but there are limits and exceptions, so you would need to consult a tax professional to get a correct answer in your specific situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b758cc9b01b3c40ca56a7c8367938dc", "text": "A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e80cc5163e18d81954a1a7decbd86e89", "text": "\"In addition to the other answers it's also noteworthy that the stock exchanges themselves adjust the price quotes via their ex-div mechanism. All limit orders present in the book when the stock goes ex-div will be adjusted by the dividend. Which means you can't even get \"\"accidentally\"\" filled in the very unlikely case that everyone forgot to adjust their quotes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "521b8fb42f6535c5f3393137640b7129", "text": "There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64e8dd8b36ad83931c55f3dc479cf037", "text": "Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62b14dd6a2c9023faba26ce0e07ea9b2", "text": "\"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"", "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": "dd4e634b0f9b679dc87584cab48a1ecd", "text": "\"For \"\"smaller trades\"\", I'm not sure you can beat FXCM.com, a large, dedicated FX trading shop with extremely tight spreads, and a \"\"Micro\"\" account that you can open for as little as $25(US). Their \"\"main\"\" offering has a minimum account size of $2k (US), but recommends an account size of $10k or more. But they also have a \"\"micro\"\" account, which can be opened for as little as $25, with a $500 or higher recommended size. I haven't used them personally, but they're well known in the discount FX space. One strong positive indicator, in my opinion, is that they sell an online FX training course for $19.99. Why is that positive? It means that their margins on your activity are small, and they're not trying to get you \"\"hooked\"\". If that were not the case, they'd give the course away, since they'd be able to afford to, and they would expect to make so much of your subsequent activity. They do have some free online materials, too, but not the video stuff. Another plus is that they encourage you to use less leverage than they allow. This does potentially serve their interests, by getting more of your deposits with them, but a lot of FX shops advertise the leverage to appeal to users' hope to make more faster, which isn't a great sign, in my opinion. Note that the micro account has no human support; you can only get support via email. On the other hand, the cost to test them out is close to nil; you can literally open an account for $25.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395657af29d1c2a678d29b213625d460", "text": "Enjoy the free trades as long as they last, and take advantage of it since this is no longer functionally a tax on your potential profits. On a side note, RobinHood and others in the past have roped customers in with low-to-zero fee trades before changing the business paradigm completely or ceasing operations. All brokers could be charging LESS fees than they do, but they get charged fees by the exchanges, and will eventually pass this down to the customer in some way or go bankrupt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373", "text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fd2d162f642ff8472e70dd04df379bd", "text": "I don't think any open source trading project is going to offer trial or demo accounts. In fact, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Are you looking for some example data sets so you can see how your algorithm would perform historically? If you contact whatever specific brokers that you'd like to interface with, they can provide things like connection tests, etc., but no one is going to let you do live trades on a trial or demo basis. For more information about setting this sort of thing up at home, here's a good link: < http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~abrock/algotrading/index.html >. It's not Python specific, but should give you a good idea of what to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c730a794b925cb372bb786761aaee5ff", "text": "There is such a thing as a buy-write, which is buying a stock and writing a (covered) call simultaneously. But as far as I know brokers charge two commissions, one stock trade and one options trade so you're not going to save on commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97bb7d925bb93ad45e72af68c03d3b68", "text": "Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9adf292a5fb58e5fed098aa9bcd6d516", "text": "Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees. Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes. Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years. Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers. Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above. One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive. It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation. Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system). This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1e96cbfd59f72545a11fed276e53f86", "text": "I don't care for this solution. I would prefer a tiny tax per transactions. Should keep the churn down, be almost unnoticeable to aggregate returns and still allow people with legitimate reason to split trades to do so and still liquidate quickly", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f", "text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82fd28a1365ba647adc6c8d74dc38fe2", "text": "The least expensive way to buy such small amounts is through ING's Sharebuilder service. You can perform a real-time trade for $9, or you can add a one-time trade to their investment schedule for $4 (transaction will be processed on the next upcoming Tuesday morning). They also allow you to purchase fractional shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a54e644b5544df0d9b26eb811dd81af", "text": "You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeb6f61e4ed5df2cb4959e50fe76c8a1", "text": "The only fee you incur when buying an ETF is the commission. If you have a brokerage account at Schwab/Fidelity/E-TRADE/Vanguard or any number of banks you won't pay more than $10 per transaction (regardless of the size of the transaction). I use Schwab which charges $5 per trade, but you can open a Robinhood account (it's a discount brokerage) for free, $0 commission trades. It lacks features that paying platforms have, but it's great for beginners. You'll get a dividend each quarter (every 3 months) for most ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a299334dcf6600c0e5f2e0f087fa951", "text": "You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations. What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5. Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5. So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100. Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs. If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990. You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges. They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting. The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange. Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties. Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares. The next depth is $101.10. You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2818bdbcd005e911a4f2012b17a4d0a", "text": "The answer is to your question is somewhat complicated. You will be unable to compete with the firms traditionally associated with High Frequency Trading in any of their strategies. Most of these strategies which involve marketing making, latency arbitrage, and rebate collection. The amount of engineering required to build the infrastructure required to run this at scale makes it something which can only be undertaken by a team of highly skilled engineers. Indeed, the advantage of firms competing in this space such as TradeBot, TradeWorx, and Getco comes from this infrastructure as most of the strategies that are developed are necessarily simple due to the latency requirements. Now if you expand the definition of HFT to include all computerized automated trading you most certainly can build strategies that are profitable. It is not something that you probably want to tackle on your own but I know of a couple of people that did go it alone successfully for a couple of years before joining an established firm to run a book for them. In order to be successful you will most likely need to develop a unique strategies. The good news is because that you are trying to deploy a very tiny amount of capital you can engage in trades that larger firms would not because the strategies cannot hold enough capital relative to the firms capital base. I am the co-founder of a small trading firm that successfully trades the US Equities and Equity Derivatives markets. A couple of things to note is that if you want to do this you should consider building a real business. Having some more smart brains around you will help. You don't need exchange colocation for all strategies. Many firms, including ours, colocate in a data center that simply has proximity to the exchanges data centers. You will need to keep things simple to be effective. Don't except all the group think that this is impossible. It is possible although as a single individual it will be more difficult. It will require long, long hours as you climb the algorithmic trading learning curve. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2f511a60aa172abdaebf4d226f7119", "text": "Borrow the lot (as your family recommended)! The extra money will come in useful when you want to buy a house and move back to the area where your employer is. The government loan in the UK is a fantastic system, just a shame they are charging you so much in tuition fees...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "36e6c13ba143bb39a3059a4feef82a8f", "text": "If you would like to find data on a specific industry/market sector, a good option is IBISworld reports. You can find their site here. You can find reports on almost any major US sector. The reports include historical data as well as financial ratios. In college projects, they were very useful for getting benchmark data to compare an individual business against an industry as a whole.", "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": "61324e4efa88c7fb7ec259055a046666", "text": "\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \"\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\"\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \"\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\"\" and the \"\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\"\", where you can find your asked \"\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\"\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc9c402008b52c0eafe34f56502c5e48", "text": "\"Some years ago, two \"\"academics,\"\" Ibbotson and Sinquefield did these calculations. (Roger) Ibbotson, is still around. So Google Roger Ibbotson, or Ibbotson Associates. There are a number of entries so I won't provide all the links.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2085c643e0903e0166fcd669c5cb5a4d", "text": "It would be difficult, but it's a statistical task, and you'd need to refer to a competent statistician to really get a sense of what sort of certainty could be derived from the available data. I believe that you'd start by looking over your state-by-state data on a granular level to try to find if there was any persistent correlation between Amazon's market penetration in a particular area and employment data from the retail industry. With regards to Ma &amp; Pa's complaint, you're sort of wrong and sort of right. Obviously they have no direct knowledge that online retail was responsible for the decline in sales that they saw. In terms of sustainability and mismanagement, however, they can show you their books. If the business had been established from some time it would be easy to see whether it had indeed been a sustainable business model in prior years. Sustainability and mismanagement, however, are Scotsmen when it comes to reasoning about causes. In measuring the effect of Amazon's entry into the market on local businesses, we can just as easily use a model that assumes a perfect market, that inefficiencies on the part of Ma^1 &amp; Pa^1 would lead them to be displaced by Ma^2 &amp; Pa^2, and that on average Ma^x &amp; Pa^x manage their business sufficiently well to extract an optimal return on effort. If circumstances are such that the role of vendor is not fungible, and the supply of Mas and Pas does not respond to the demand for family stores, then I don't actually know how to do the math, but on the other hand I do recognize a smoking gun.", "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": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52", "text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89c2990dfb7720502059f4fcbbbfa872", "text": "I dont know if this data is available for the 1980s, but this response to an old question of mine discusses how you can pull stock related information from google or yahoo finance over a certain period of time. You could do this in excel or google spreadsheet and see if you could get the data you're looking for. Quote from old post: Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fe2c6cb65515b9032aed7caae98453f", "text": "\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2285e494799ac5c925329e0178beab88", "text": "I had a question about this but it apparently wasn’t formed in the right way as I got no explanations and only downvotes, so let me try again. Given the massive amount of info you gave, I tried to go through and find the data I was asking for- data behind the projections of such a loss. Perhaps since I’m not a professional economist, It was not immediately apparent to me how to find the data behind the projections. Would you mind demonstrating how any of these sources provide the data behind how such projections are made? Or do you have any other advice as to how I could find an answer?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d39558707c99370df964113c766d448b", "text": "Some other ratios: * Cost per customer (expenses divided by attendance) * Attendance variance year over year * Payroll minutes per patron Not sure if those help. They have a bunch of smaller performance tracking stats from % of waste from inventory to employee performance. From talking with my roommate, the theater industry sounds awfully familiar to how the hotel industry tracks it's performance. The hotel industry tracks performance based on occupancy and room revenue. Theaters track performance based on attendance and concession revenue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce39b9dfd8d0449374b8c1df3bc0e9d5", "text": "\"For free, 5 years is somewhat available, and 10 years is available to a limited extent on money.msn.com. Some are calculated for you. Gurufocus is also a treasure trove of value statistics that do in fact reach back 10 years. From the Gurufocus site, the historical P/E can be calculated by dividing their figure for \"\"Earnings per Share\"\" by the share price at the time. It looks like their EPS figure is split adjusted, so you'll have to use the split adjusted share price. \"\"Free cash\"\", defined in the comments as money held at the end of the year, can be found on the balance sheet as \"\"Cash, Cash Equivalents, Marketable Securities\"\"; however, the more common term is \"\"free cash flow\"\", and its growth rate can be found at the top of the gurufocus financials page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "477ff98da46062514eaec62de026fd63", "text": "Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stock price history. Major Asset Classes 1926 - 2011 - JVL Associates, LLC has a PDF with some of the classes you list from the data dating back as far as 1926. There is also the averages stated on a Bogleheads article that has some reference links that may also be useful. Four Pillars of Investing's Chapter 1 also has some historical return information in it that may be of help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12226cbcd9d23ce4d27dc0efef65eece", "text": "Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "833509e9ec1ece0c37d885e1776f3407", "text": "\"The biotechnology sector as a whole is a popular buy recommendation among some analysts these days for a few reasons. Some analysts feel that the high costs in R&D, even without much profit, are a positive sign for growth because it means a company is working towards finding the next \"\"blockbuster drug\"\" or the next class of such drugs. There haven't been many new classes of blockbuster drugs since the development of SSRI's and statins, and many of the new drugs that have been developed have been tweaks to existing classes of drugs. Some analysts feel that \"\"it's about time\"\" for a new class of blockbuster drugs to hit the market. A new blockbuster drug means significant profits for the company that develops it; a new class of blockbuster drugs means significant profits for the whole industry. Since about 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has been more lenient in its approval of new drugs. This wave of new approvals has reduced R&D costs for companies because they don't need to go back to the lab or earlier phases of clinical trials and continually tweak their drugs in order to gain approval. This has also made some analysts optimistic. Genetic engineering is considered an up-and-coming field with potentially significant applications to the pharmaceutical industry. Advances in this field may increase profits for the pharm industry, but since biotech companies are often the ones producing the engineering equipment, research, etc. such advances could be a major source of revenue for the entire biotech industry. In the US and in the developed world as a whole, the elderly population is growing, and since people consume more medicine as they grow older, this could lead to higher profits for companies involved in the production of pharmaceuticals (which includes biotech companies, of course) in the long run. In the US, the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage, which gives more people the means to afford pharmaceuticals. Also, in general, people consume more healthcare services when they have insurance (this is called moral hazard), so some analysts expect that the expansion of insurance coverage will only lead to more profits for the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology firms in general. The global food crisis. As the climate changes, companies like Monsanto, which use various forms of genetic engineering to produce crop strains that can survive in increasingly hostile environments, look more and more appealing to places that need crops designed to grow in such environments. Any methods that could increase yields look increasingly popular, and biotechnology companies often market such methods. (As a side note, I know Monsanto is a contentious example, and there are a lot of misconceptions about \"\"genetically modified food\"\" and the genetic engineering methods they do, so I won't get into a debate about that). In general, technology is a popular subject right now. I've read analyst reports (from analysts that clearly don't follow the biotech sector) that base their forecasts for the biotech sector on the activities of companies like Dell, Zynga, HP, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. Clearly, it's problematic when an analyst sees the word \"\"technology\"\" and automatically assumes that the biotech sector is responsive to the same factors as social media firms, hardware manufacturers, etc. This isn't to say that the biotech sector is completely isolated from this, but when I read a report that talks about Facebook's IPO being bad news for companies like Gilead Sciences without mentioning upcoming FDA decisions about Gilead's products or any biotech-specific factors, I'm not convinced the analyst has performed due diligence. I keep using the phrase \"\"some analysts\"\" because I want to stress that the opinions stated above aren't universal. Although they're popular, not everyone is so optimistic. Also, I don't want you to see these reasons and think that I'm making a buy recommendation, because I'm not. I'm not making a recommendation one way or another. I'm happy to clarify my answer too; I follow the biotechnology sector extensively. If you want to get a rough feel for the daily movements of the sector as a whole, a good place to start is IBB, the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology Index Fund. The four largest holdings are Regeneron, Gilead Sciences, Amgen, and Celgene, which are all big players in the industry (obviously). These are a little different from the big name pharma companies like Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, etc. but they're still considered pharma companies. It's also worthwhile to follow the FDA press announcements. By the time the news is published there, it's probably already leaked or known to people in the industry (the biotech/pharm sectors are rife with accusations of insider trading), so you might not find trading opportunities, but it's important to get familiar with the information the releases contain if you want to know more about the industry. Volatility trades are always popular trades around FDA drug approvals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4521934ec85b9804d0873a7241a44ee", "text": "Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits. Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material. For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "555be60b1c7c421fc2d3104626e6fa19", "text": "\"Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a \"\"buy\"\" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f", "text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e358688d39c4c6a8e315a4c826146db", "text": "\"The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. During the time between earnings announcements, analysts occasionally publish their assessment of a company, including their estimate of the company's value and future earnings. And as part of an earnings report, companies often include \"\"guidance\"\": their prediction for the upcoming quarter (this will frequently be a conservative estimate, so they're more likely to achieve it). Investors make their purchase and sale decisions based on this information. When the earnings report comes out, investors compare these actual returns to analysts' predictions and the company's guidance. If their results are in line with these predictions, the stock price is unlikely to move much, as those results are already incorporated into the stock price. If the company is doing better than predicted, it's usually a good sign, and the price often rises; conversely, if it's doing worse, the price will likely fall. But it's not as simple as this. As others have explained, for long-term investors, stock prices are based on expectations of future activity. If the results of that quarter include some one-time actions that are unlikely to repeat, investors will often discount that portion.\"", "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": "46209eafc0c865103c6e95b81c4e4564", "text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.", "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": "5612dcb81d25c948a71027db30822c3b", "text": "\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "022b2047d5aa7a04f382006442c2b68b", "text": "\"Greatowl's response is pretty cynical. I'm not a wall street analyst but I do read some of the research and there is a lot of respectable analysis out there. There are many smart analysts who consistently get poached from the equity research departments to join the buy side. I'd also contend that level of accuracy is an incomplete measure of performance. It doesnt matter if you're right or wrong, what matters is how much you make when you are right and how much you lose when you are wrong. Soros is purported to have a 30% \"\"batting average\"\" but the guy makes a killing when he's right (source: Inside the House of Money).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581", "text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53b40fbc4f59ba72d23147ba20bacc3b", "text": "Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc604c1fddc098493a3be4d6559aaa68", "text": "Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2b54cdc0716e474b03097af2f154815", "text": "\"If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (\"\"I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release\"\") is a criminal offence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9d617f557de461922e4bbc5006d96e", "text": "Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research &amp; Development expense last year). Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33e88a0fd8405877ed821efe13bd3a78", "text": "P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea", "text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63aa0aa9df8392a03397153ad07ed3a5", "text": "Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining. The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale. A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d59f698a6eea79873456b6214ffaca0", "text": "You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "276a698e578e85d0ec7b4898cd575268", "text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a", "text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cfd44d1b8f2c9b7a99bb5efdee49d5a1", "text": "The definition of market cap is exactly shares oustanding * share price, so something is wrong here. It seems that the share price is expressed in pence rather pounds. There's a note at the bottom: Currency in GBp. Note the 'p' rather than 'P'. So the share price of '544' is actually 544p, i.e. £5.44. However it's not really clear just from the annotations which figures are in pence and which are actually in pounds. It seems that the market cap is in pounds but the enterprise value is in pence, given that 4.37 billion is about the right value in pounds whereas 441 billion only really makes sense if expressed in pence. It looks like they actually got the enterprise value wrong by a factor of 100. Perhaps their calculation treated the share price as being denominated in pounds rather than pence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1672008e1acaa64033b69362c83ac6c", "text": "P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f70c08e60d9f5b1375bca604d8599f", "text": "It is ALWAYS possible for a company's valuation in the market to be larger than the market it serves, and in fact it is not uncommon. There's valid argument that Uber would be a good example of this, with a market cap of more than $60 billion. Market cap is the total value of all shares outstanding. Keep in mind that what a company's shares trade for is less a reflection of its past (or, to some degree, even present) revenue activity and more of a speculative bet on what the company will do in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7deba6712b7fb28aabe4197b393aa59", "text": "Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41", "text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "c947ee0c62bb10677e480cca9de92e11", "text": "When a stock price rises, the company's assets are worth more. This doesn't mean it gets more cash directly, but it can liquidate (= sell) some of its stocks for a higher return than before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb", "text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4281c150f771e7826991543427f819bb", "text": "No. The market cap has no relation to actual money that flowed anywhere, it is simple the number of shares multiplied by the current price, and the current price is what potential buyers are (were) willing to pay for the share. So any news that increases or decreases interest in shares changes potentially the share price, and with that the market cap. No money needs to flow.", "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": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797", "text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ff491bfc4b2f438ed6236f9c30b6548", "text": "\"I've alway thought that it was strange, but the \"\"price\"\" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, \"\"fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price\"\", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, \"\"open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20\"\", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)\"", "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": "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": "73c009c7bf9683f89cbf299e3b45b5ee", "text": "I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "916d8876cb4f852df639d4a317cef3d9", "text": "\"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to \"\"move your savings to Canada\"\" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a \"\"flight to safety\"\"; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bce2a4b42da3308b91bc62b75237674", "text": "Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks. Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce4f2edeea1c5ed88eb36d44644fc5c0", "text": "It is absolutely feasible to move your savings into Canada. There are a few ways you can do it. However it is unlikely you will benefit or avoid risk by doing so. You could directly hold your savings in the CAD. Investing in Canadian bonds achieves a similar goal as holding your money in the CAD. By doing so you will be getting re-payed with CAD. Some Canadian companies also trade on US markets. In addition some brokerage firms allow you to trade on Canadian markets. The problem with any of the options is the assumption that Canadian banks will fare better then US banks. The entire globe is very dependent on each other, especially the more developed nations. If large US banks were to fail it would create a domino effect which would spiral into a global credit crunch. It wouldn't matter if your invested in Canadian companies or US companies they would all suffer as would the global economy. So it would probably be more valid to refer to your question - enter link description here If you are referring to weather the Canadian bonds would be a safer investment over US Treasuries it would all depend on the scenario at hand. Investors would probably flock to both treasuries.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d92cf4a2c8499ba7bb4c375c7444f3dc", "text": "India has Foreign Exchange Management Act. Under the liberalized scheme, there are limits for individuals to move funds out of India for specific purposes. Any such transfer require a CA certificate, so it would be advisable to talk to a CA to understand the specifics of your case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c22ddc6666d604975f4b2b01bdbd3979", "text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ebc7fc2fe6982e3c3c583336b0bc7fb", "text": "There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb7552c1ff46cd7722042c55aa395f87", "text": "RoyalBank provides a no fee transfer service (no fee in the sense that there is no per transfer fee aside from the spread). There is monthly fee if you keep less than 1500 or so on the american side. http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/usbanking/cross-border-transfer.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c12bc3175fa0e13e7583371e1891a8ba", "text": "In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c86b0d267984e7b5f0929fb77b2bd8f7", "text": "Most US banks don't allow you the ability to draft a foreign currency check from USD. Though, I know Canadian banks are more workable. For instance, TD allows you to do this from CAD to many other currencies for a small fee. I believe even as a US Citizen you can quite easily open a TD Trust account and you'd be good to go. Also, at one time Zions bank was one of the few which lets US customers do this add-hoc. And there is a fee associated. Even as a business, you can't usually do this without jumping thru hoops and proving your business dealings in foreign countries. Most businesses who do this often will opt to using a payment processor service from a 3rd party which cuts checks in foreign currencies at a monthly and per check base. Your other option, which may be more feasible if you're planning on doing this often, would be to open a British bank account. But this can be difficult if not impossible due to the strict money laundering anti-fraud regulations. Many banks simply won't do it. But, you might try a few of the newer British banks like Tesco, Virgin and Metro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a03e11b09578cfefddc3909b61c1c49", "text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "144cce3a1c93590519217a7e460232ff", "text": "There are a few options that I know of, but pretty much every one of them will cost more than you want to pay in fees, probably. You should be able to write a check/cheque to yourself. You might check with your US bank branch to see how much of a limit they'd have. You can also use a Canadian ATM card at a US ATM. The final option would be to use a Canadian credit card for all of your purchases in the US, and then pay the bill from the Canadian bank account. I don't recommend the last option because if you're not careful to pay off the bill every month, you're running up debt. Also, it's hard to pay some kinds of expenses by credit card, so you'd want a way to have cash available. Another option would be to use a service like Paypal or Hyperwallet to send yourself the money. Again, you'd be paying fees, but these might be cheaper than what the bank would charge. There may be other options, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Whatever you choose, look carefully at what the fees would be, and how long you'd have to wait to get the money. If you can plan ahead a bit, and take larger chunks of money at a time, that should help keep the fees down a bit. I believe there's also a point where you start having to report these transfers to the US government. The number $10,000 stick in my head, but they may have changed that recently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f726f809f97b359ec75b22e77941d0cb", "text": "Transfers can be made from U.S. pension plans to Canadian RRSPs, if the following conditions are met: Way more details here: http://www.howlandtax.com/answers/05Sept21.htm And googling 'transfer 401k to rrsp' yields much fruit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db", "text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ab3fee36c996ad778cc4618cca18011", "text": "\"Assuming that the assets in the \"\"old\"\" TFSA are in cash, you could simply withdraw the money and redeposit it in the \"\"new\"\" TFSA, in the following year!!. The yearly limit is on your gross deposits for the year, not the net. This method obviously works best near the end of December. You should expect the new TFSA to briefly question the amount; they don't want to help you make a costly mistake. At other times, the direct transfer in @Grade EhBacon's answer would be better.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8f5fa9a7144cf472c4d3c3c924557d", "text": "\"The point here is actually about banks, or is in reference to banks. They expect you know how a savings account at a bank works, but not mutual funds, and so are trying to dispel an erroneous notion that you might have -- that the CBIC will insure your investment in the fund. Banks work by taking in deposits and lending that money out via mortgages. The mortgages can last up to 30 years, but the deposits are \"\"on demand\"\". Which means you can pull your money out at any time. See the problem? They're maintaining a fiction that that money is there, safe and sound in the bank vault, ready to be returned whenever you want it, when in fact it's been loaned out. And can't be called back quickly, either. They know only a little bit of that money will be \"\"demanded\"\" by depositors at any given time, so they keep a percentage called a \"\"reserve\"\" to satisfy that, er, demand. The rest, again, is loaned out. Gone. And usually that works out just fine. Except sometimes it doesn't, when people get scared they might not get their money back, and they all go to the bank at the same time to demand their on-demand deposits back. This is called a \"\"run on the bank\"\", and when that happens, the bank \"\"fails\"\". 'Cause it ain't got the money. What's failing, in fact, is the fiction that your money is there whenever you want it. And that's really bad, because when that happens to you at your bank, your friends the customers of other banks start worrying about their money, and run on their banks, which fail, which cause more people to worry and try to get their cash out, lather, rinse repeat, until the whole economy crashes. See -- The Great Depression. So, various governments introduced \"\"Deposit Insurance\"\", where the government will step in with the cash, so when you panic and pull all your money out of the bank, you can go home happy, cash in hand, and don't freak all your friends out. Therefore, the fear that your money might not really be there is assuaged, and it doesn't spread like a mental contagion. Everyone can comfortably go back to believing the fiction, and the economy goes back to merrily chugging along. Meanwhile, with mutual funds & ETFs, everyone understands the money you put in them is invested and not sitting in a gigantic vault, and so there's no need for government insurance to maintain the fiction. And that's the point they're trying to make. Poorly, I might add, where their wording is concerned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30e4fb242f8e042d3c4cc995bc4986e", "text": "Canada, like other second-rate economies with weak currencies, provides USD accounts. It is not the same vice versa. It is rare to find a direct deposit foreign currency account in the US as it is the world-leading currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382", "text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "73f0f5884654654b0658b3caef2f0620", "text": "You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6ce35d03492be82ba637153265746f74", "text": "I used Oanda.com for Forex trading a couple years ago. I am in the US but I think it's available in the UK as well. At the time, they had no commissions and their spreads were comparable or better than other brokers. The spreads would just quite considerably when a big event like a Fed meeting or the unemployment figures come out, but I suspect that that is the same everywhere (or they have constant spreads and reject trades). They did not push the high leverages like other brokers were at the time. I considered this to be very reputable, because though the profits to be gotten through 100:1 leverage are great advertising, the reality is that one unexpected spike and a newbie would lose a bunch of money in a margin call.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad88c6e02a19df554b969904c287526", "text": "\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee83cf1681351e0bbe55dd42652e9db8", "text": "You can view certain US economic data with FRED Graph or download the data to play with FRED download. Here is some example tax data:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd7f2b503ced211bf1dc76b6d304183f", "text": "Central banks don't generally post exchange rates with other currencies, as they are not determined by central banks but by the currency markets. You need a source for live exchange rate data (for example www.xe.com), and you need to calculate the prices in other currencies dynamically as they are displayed -- they will be changing continually, from minute to minute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7ff0489f0eabd8d4d808b9215088b15", "text": "You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0044afa440570181fb34cb566eaab389", "text": "I found the zephyr database, which does the job. Nonetheless if someone knows other (open) sources, be welcome to answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a84f16ada81922d72884f228646ce307", "text": "I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6db30f454c040ad0bfefaf7151447a71", "text": "Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49be636cb79217a992a2a5337909c617", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "12c634220fc3e2dc46fc247bc28c4557", "text": "I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "db751b9cc469f547550a323044b23d8e", "text": "For manual conversion you can use many sites, starting from google (type 30 USD in yuan) to sites like xe.com mentioned here. For programmatic conversion, you could use Google Calculator API or many other currency exchange APIs that are available. Beware however that if you do it on the real site, the exchange rate is different from actual rates used by banks and payment processing companies - while they use market-based rates, they usually charge some premium on currency conversion, meaning that if you have something for 30 dollars, according to current rate it may bet 198 yuan, but if he uses a credit card for purchase, it may cost him, for example, 204 yuan. You should be very careful about making difference between snapshot market rates and actual rates used in specific transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55bd82392b9f03e4190e3d4436bb95c2", "text": "Thank you. Added to my list. This is very very helpful. I knew about the blockchain and the currency. Unfortunately, I'm not a pedant about differentiating between them with capitalising the first letter. I do not, however, understand Ethereum very well at all. So will read up.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "59246ae9b4f3f7ec846b8c47640bb308", "text": "\"I highly recommend http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ Professor Damodaran. He's written some of the best valuation books in existence (my favorite, simply \"\"Investment Valuation\"\"). On his website you'll find a big pile of spreadsheets, that are models for working the various approaches to valuing a company. Also, he teaches an MBA-level valuation course at Stern School of Business in NYC. And he videotapes it and you can watch it for free. Very smart, kind, generous man.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d513872a89d3375d7b33660846180649", "text": "Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8399543fe9b611cc89a88cecf78f9c74", "text": "It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here: What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows? In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "63bc244c29598b0de41cdc7a48443d51", "text": "\"I hate to be the guy that says this but if you are indeed competing in the CFAI Research Challenge it is probably important. Remember you cannot use CFA as a noun (CFA's) you can only use it as an adjective ie a CFA charterholder. As far as you question, what was provided below is pretty much all you need. Security Analysis, anything from the NYU professor and Greenwald stuff (although Greenwald, like someone already mentioned, is balance sheet focused) will get you where you need to go. I am not sure what you mean by \"\"exotic valuation\"\" methods. As far as I know, the three most accepted and used valuation models by practitioners are the DCF model, the multiple model and the residual income model. DCF uses short term cash flows and a terminal value discounted to today at some discount rate. The multiple model puts some multiple on earnings, book value, cash flow to arrive at a fair value. The residual model is the opposite of the DCF. One starts with the assets book value, then accrues all income generated in excess of WACC from all future periods. Find some CFAI Level 2 books on equity and bond valuation. They pretty much cover it all. And for a closing note, to perform well in investing and valuing companies it is not about what valuation model you use. Focus on WHY an asset should be worth what you think it is worth, not HOW you get to some valuation of that asset. Just my two cents.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39b37febb386d8d25976b32ed6e7097", "text": "all of these examples are great if you actually believe in fundamentals, but who believes in fundamentals alone any more? Stock prices are driven by earnings, news, and public perception. For instance, a pharma company named Eyetech has their new macular degeneration drug approved by the FDA, and yet their stock price plummeted. Typically when a small pharma company gets a drug approved, it's off to the races. But, Genetech came out said their macular degeneration drug was going to be far more effective, and that they were well on track for approval.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f56ae1095f00461fba1809cd285a175", "text": "\"You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company: \"\"Price is what you pay, value is what you get\"\". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing). I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "b648eff366f6e5637857115c7754cff1", "text": "Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "278f315a77e4a4a26c0a02e978f6be6f", "text": "This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701", "text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b82fb1b960b241080e16afd01ce6551", "text": "\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18f714e37c58c5709f088dfa8fe323b8", "text": "I could argue Amazon. And Facebook the other way. Before the down-vote brigade appears, I'll just say I said I could *argue* those points. Also, I haven't done valuation in years, and definitely not for tech because while I am a big techie, the industry itself seems likes a clown lottery with respect to valuation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6a35f1951cf41e56a1603955d3ac58", "text": "As I have worked for H&R Block I know for a fact that they record all your activity with them for future reference. If it is their opinion that you are obligated to use their service if you use some other service then this, most likely, will affect your future dealings with them. So, ask yourself this question: is reducing their income from you this year worth never being able to deal with them again in future years? The answer to that will give you the answer to your question.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f07f11ef961fba7897da39b6b1e87f3e", "text": "The interpretation is correct. The Reuters may give you the London 4PM rates if you query after the close for the day. The close rate is treated as the rate. http://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies/quote?srcAmt=1&srcCurr=GBP&destAmt=&destCurr=USD The London 4PM rate may be obtained from Bank of England at the link below; http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxSTxTIx&levels=1&XNotes=Y&XNotes2=Y&Nodes=X3790X3791X3873X33940&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=false&A3836XBMX3790X3791.x=4&A3836XBMX3790X3791.y=3 Or any other Bank that provides such data", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d56cf7b2f6193eac92d57bd4a84e4d3b", "text": "\"The answer to each of your questions is no. It is important to appreciate that the \"\"quoted\"\" ticker price may be delayed by say 15 minutes, and thus is not \"\"real-time.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6525fabe5b4facfd715c4d176e28d7c", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03e9557aeedc4a1650f7eba55a9cf3b6", "text": "I work for a fund management company and we get our news through two different service providers Bloomberg and Thomson One. They don't actually source the news though they just feed news from other providers Professional solutions (costs ranging from $300-1500+ USD/month/user) Bloomberg is available as a windows install or via Bloomberg Anywhere which offers bimometric access via browser. Bloomberg is superb and their customer support is excellent but they aren't cheap. If you're looking for a free amateur solution for stock news I'd take a look at There are dozens of other tools people can use for day trading that usually provide news and real time prices at a cost but I don't have any direct experience with them", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e452b219724c5f5bd7923cc1230effeb", "text": "Have you looked at ThinkorSwim, which is now part of TD Ameritrade? Because of their new owner, you'll certainly be accepted as a US customer and the support will likely be responsive. They are certainly pushing webinars and learning resources around the ThinkorSwim platform. At the least you can start a Live Help session and get your answers. That link will take you to the supported order types list. Another tab there will show you the currency pairs. USD is available with both CAD and JPY. Looks like the minimum balance requirement is $25k across all ThinkorSwim accounts. Barron's likes the platform and their annual review may help you find reasons to like it. Here is more specific news from a press release: OMAHA, Neb., Aug 24, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: AMTD) today announced that futures and spot forex (foreign exchange) trading capabilities are now available via the firm's thinkorswim from TD AMERITRADE trading platform, joining the recently introduced complex options functionality.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cfda44e5b7c17b0ab1e06760dc02fd", "text": "Today's rate is 23.21 bps. I'm going to list years forward, spot rate, forward rate. 1, 30.27, 61.77 2, 63.64, 155.73 3, 107.15, 228.04 4, 143.16, 266.31 5, 172.55, 290.12 These are bids, but mids are all within a basis point", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ab77689a3736559dc6bcc1147836b43", "text": "Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&amp;Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/23ab8a02-5787-11e7-80b6-9bfa4c1f83d2?mhq5j=e1 By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our cookie policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them. Dismiss cookie message Accessibility helpSkip to navigationSkip to contentSkip to footer Financial Times MYFT HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK &amp; CAREERS LIFE &amp; ARTS Portfolio My Account HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK &amp; CAREERS LIFE &amp; ARTS MYFT Bank stress tests Add to myFT US banks pass first round of annual stress tests Clean bill of health from Federal Reserve opens door to increased shareholder payouts Read next Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 © AFP Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Email4 Save JUNE 22, 2017 by: Alistair Gray and Ben McLannahan in New York and Barney Jopson in Washington US banks have big enough capital buffers to keep trading through an economic meltdown, regulators said on Thursday, in a finding that improves their chances of boosting payouts to shareholders. In the first round of this year’s stress tests, the Federal Reserve probed how 34 banks would fare in a financial and economic slump in which the unemployment rate doubles and the stock market loses half its value. The central bank calculated that the banking sector would endure $493bn in losses in the simulated downturn. Yet officials concluded that the banks would emerge from the crash “well capitalised”, with cushions of shareholder funding still above the Fed’s minimum required levels. The largely upbeat results augur well for US banks as the Fed prepares to unveil the results of the tests’ second round next week, when investors will learn how much capital they can return through dividends and share buybacks. However, the figures released on Thursday do not foretell what the Fed will say about payouts, not least because regulators can approve or block US banks’ capital plans on qualitative as well as quantitative grounds. Lex Bank stress tests: chilled The once-vital check on the industry’s health is outliving its usefulness UBS analysts estimate that the four biggest by assets — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — will be able to return a net $59.8bn this year, rising to $72.3bn in 2018. Citi and Morgan Stanley could be among about a dozen banks that will make requests to return more than 100 per cent of their annual earnings to shareholders, according to Goldman Sachs analysts. Despite the positive stress test results, not all investors would be comfortable with such a bonanza. Bill Hines, a fixed-income investment manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in Philadelphia, said the prospect of payouts in excess of profits “does scare us a little bit”. “If the safety blanket is pulled away . . . that may come to the detriment of capital and safety.” Across-the-board passes for the stress-test are “a good thing,” he said, as it shows that banks have rebuilt capital levels substantially since the crisis. “But from a creditor’s standpoint you don’t want to see all the profits go out the door.” While banks have already told the Fed what they propose to do on dividends and buybacks, they are now able to make more conservative payout plans if, based on the first-round results, they think it will reject them in the second round. Related article Regulators back Trump on looser financial rules Officials endorse Volcker rule revamp and bank relief from burden of ‘stress tests’ The regulator’s simulated downturn lasts for nine quarters. Banks’ overall loan losses and declines in capital under the worst crisis scenario were smaller than in last year’s stress tests, Fed officials said. Still, the test found that some banks would come close to breaching regulatory minimums during the meltdown on some metrics. For instance, Morgan Stanley’s “supplementary leverage ratio” — a new measure of financial strength that takes effect in 2018 — would drop as low as 3.8 per cent compared with a required level of 3 per cent. The results also drew attention to banks’ exposure to credit card lending. The Fed found banks would suffer the biggest losses in their card portfolios in the hypothetical crisis. Fed officials said that partly reflected a rapid expansion in the size of banks’ credit card assets and rising delinquency rates in the real world. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Email4 Save Latest on Bank stress tests Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 Fed stress tests give $1.6bn boost to Buffett Fed gives nod to ‘payout party time’ for banks Lex US banks: feeling special Premium Stress tests clear big US banks for $100bn payout Read latest Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 Latest on Bank stress tests Add to myFT Week in Review Week in Review, July 1 US banks pass test; Google, Takata, Fox and M&amp;A also in the news Banks Fed stress tests give $1.6bn boost to Buffett Investor is one of the largest holders of US bank stocks and will reap big dividends Analysis Bank stress tests Fed gives nod to ‘payout party time’ for banks Buybacks and dividends set to soar after industry passes latest stress test Latest in Banks Add to myFT Central Banks BoE successfully tests new payment method ‘Interledger’ programme synchronises transactions between two central banks 3 HOURS AGO US banks US consumers set to be given power to sue banks Financial institutions express fury at CFPB proposal that could spur class actions UK banks BoE warns UK banks on accounting practices PRA chief Sam Woods says lenders should ‘expect questions’ on balance sheet trickery Follow the topics mentioned in this article JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. Add to myFT Companies Add to myFT Banks Add to myFT Wells Fargo Add to myFT Citigroup, Inc. Add to myFT Follow the authors of this article Barney Jopson Add to myFT Alistair Gray Add to myFT Take a tour of myFT Support View Site Tips Feedback Help Centre About Us Accessibility Legal &amp; Privacy Terms &amp; Conditions Privacy Cookies Copyright Slavery Statement Services FT Live Share News Tips Securely Individual Subscriptions Group Subscriptions Republishing Contracts &amp; Tenders Analysts Research Executive Job Search Advertise with the FT Follow the FT on Twitter Ebooks UK Secondary Schools Tools Portfolio Today's Newspaper (ePaper) Alerts Hub Lexicon MBA Rankings Economic Calendar News feed Newsletters Currency Converter More from the FT Group Markets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2017. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice. CloseFinancial Times UK Edition Switch to International Edition Top sections Home World Show more World links UK Show more UK links Companies Show more Companies links Markets Show more Markets links Opinion Show more Opinion links Work &amp; Careers Show more Work &amp; Careers links Life &amp; Arts Show more Life &amp; Arts links Personal Finance Show more Personal Finance links Science Special Reports FT recommends Lex Alphaville EM Squared Lunch with the FT Video Podcasts Blogs News feed Newsletters myFT Portfolio Today's Newspaper (ePaper) Crossword Help Centre My Account Sign Out", "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": "ed60840adabb35f50fbe3ecac6904235", "text": "\"What you're looking for are either FX Forwards or FX Futures. These products are traded differently but they are basically the same thing -- agreements to deliver currency at a defined exchange rate at a future time. Almost every large venue or bank will transact forwards, when the counterparty (you or your broker) has sufficient trust and credit for the settlement risk, but the typical duration is less than a year though some will do a single-digit multi-year forward on a custom basis. Then again, all forwards are considered custom contracts. You'll also need to know that forwards are done on currency pairs, so you'll need to pick the currency to pair your NOK against. Most likely you'll want EUR/NOK simply for the larger liquidity of that pair over other possible pairs. A quote on a forward will usually just be known by the standard currency pair ticker with a settlement date different from spot. E.g. \"\"EUR/NOK 12M\"\" for the 12 month settlement. Futures, on the other hand, are exchange traded and more standardized. The vast majority through the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). Your broker will need access to one of these exchanges and you simply need to \"\"qualify\"\" for futures trading (process depends on your broker). Futures generally have highest liquidity for the next \"\"IMM\"\" expiration (quarterly expiration on well known standard dates), but I believe they're defined for more years out than forwards. At one FX desk I've knowledge of, they had 6 years worth of quarterly expirations in their system at any one time. Futures are generally known by a ticker composed of a \"\"globex\"\" or \"\"cme\"\" code for the currency concatenated with another code representing the expiration. For example, \"\"NOKH6\"\" is 'NOK' for Norwegian Krone, 'H' for March, and '6' for the nearest future date's year that ends in '6' (i.e. 2016). Note that you'll be legally liable to deliver the contracted size of Krone if you hold through expiration! So the common trade is to hold the future, and net out just before expiration when the price more accurately reflects the current spot market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6608fe20149388b7b6e8d705c69432f", "text": "Here are some pretty big name news agencies which have a section dedicated to commodities: CNN Bloomberg Reuters", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d", "text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b4070ae8f86c7d172defb39f9cd1a7", "text": "Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce74473919d8ee1c40037ea199392734", "text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21cef6e11914c95fd0ec6207b10be7a6", "text": "Yes, one such provider is: https://www.fxcompared.com/ They allow you to compare a number of foreign currency providers, and take into account all of the fees and spreads, and give you a simple number which you can use to compare them - the amount of foreign currency you get for your domestic currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "031f7677868338ead3397e82547dabd7", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-idUSKBN1AR0M9) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; LONDON - Sterling fell to a fresh 10-month low against the euro on Friday as investors added bearish bets against the British currency on concerns the economy may be struggling to gain momentum. &gt; Sterling fell 0.2 percent to 90.92 pence against the euro, its lowest level since October 2016. &gt; It has fallen for two consecutive weeks and has weakened nearly 9 percent against the euro since early May. Morgan Stanley strategists are predicting euro parity with the pound in the first quarter of 2018. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6thf3f/british_pound_further_down/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~190040 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*: **against**^#1 **since**^#2 **Sterling**^#3 **week**^#4 **euro**^#5\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "aad610e3a0fb5a902164d4ff0b71f472", "text": "No. Mark-to-market valuation relies on using a competitive market of public traders to determine the share price --- from free-market trading among independent traders who are not also insiders. Any professional valuation would see through the promotional nature of the share offer. It is pretty obvious that the purchaser of a share could not turn around and sell their share for $10, unless the 'free hosting' that is worth most of the $10 follows it... and that's more of hybrid of stock and bond than pure stock. It is also pretty obvious that selling a few shares for $10 does not mean one could sell 10,000,000 shares for $10, because of the well known decreasing marginal value effect from economics. While this question seems hypothetical, as a practical matter offering to sell share of unregistered securities in a startup for $10 to the general public, is likely to run afoul of state or federal securities laws -- irregardless of the honesty of the business or any included promotional offers. See http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm for more information about the SEC regulations for raising capital for small businesses.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f647dec432cc64c784b8e4707e83ead2", "text": "I was wondering why equity is reflecting ownership of the issuing entity? That is the definition of equity in this regard. My understanding is that for a stock/equity, its issuing entity is a company/firm that sells the stock/equity, while its receiving entity is an investor that buys the stock/equity Correct. equity reflects ownership of the receiving entity i.e. investor Incorrect. Equity reflects ownership by the receiving entity of the issuing entity. That is, when you buy stock in a company (taking an equity stake in the company) you buy a piece of the company. It would be rather odd for the company to own a piece of you when you buy their stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f15e1b1e2d695565c4dfa9ef72174040", "text": "\"The formulae #issued shares = #outstanding shares + #treasury shares looks right. However it looks like the Treasury Shares are treated as -ve in accounting books and thus the outstanding shares are more than issued shares to the extent of Treasury shares. Further info at \"\"Accounting for treasury stock\"\" on wiki\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ccebb6bcea7089d89b1fd72e66e3b81", "text": "Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1", "text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.", "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": "8b82fb1b960b241080e16afd01ce6551", "text": "\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "f422fed82b5d6c8e6e19ddbb10d3fed2", "text": "\"Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit. I love it here. And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion. Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods. At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with \"\"initial investment\"\" or \"\"seed funding.\"\" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.). The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow. At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things). At this point, do you have any questions?\"", "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": "adbdd54925b565f216b4280ab7340fb6", "text": "Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c", "text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7deba6712b7fb28aabe4197b393aa59", "text": "Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.", "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": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e11a156276e3268bd1b63620fce86a21", "text": "When you sell the stock your income is from the difference of prices between when you bought the stock and when you sold it. There's no interest there. The interest is in two places: the underlying company assets (which you own, whether you want it or not), and in the distribution of the income to the owners (the dividends). You can calculate which portion of the interest income constitutes your dividend by allocating the portions of your dividend in the proportions of the company income. That would (very roughly and unreliably, of course) give you an estimate what portion of your dividend income derives from the interest. Underlying assets include all the profits of the company that haven't been distributed through dividends, but rather reinvested back into the business. These may or may not be reflected in the market price of the company. Bottom line is that there's no direct correlation between the income from the sale of the stake of ownership and the company income from interest, if any correlation at all exists. Why would you care about interest income of Salesforce? Its not a bank or a lender, they may have some interest income, but that's definitely not the main income source of the company. If you want to know how much interest income exactly the company had, you'll have to dig deep inside the quarterly and annual reports, and even then I'm not sure if you'll find it as a separate item for a company that's not in the lending business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f140602b8d3a82ed0ca20c229cbe9769", "text": "\"Their interest expense was $17M. Where you see $5.14/sh in Key Statistics, any daily interest received is more than canceled out by the expense paid at the same time. I understand your concern, but this company is not \"\"sitting on cash\"\" as are Apple, Google, etc. Short term rates are well below 1%, 1yr tbill looks like about .2%. So strictly speaking, each share might have 1 cent interest you need to concern yourself with. Disclaimer to other readers - This has nothing to do with taxes. OP is asking about a specific part of the company cash flow. His worst case is $1 per 100 shares.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf", "text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e708f9f70f348131c33139a46aa03b34", "text": "One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6750caf3b3fe1f4073faf6793ceaa7f3", "text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e23e9b15dd562465366a939546bc4577", "text": "\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2e802dff593d3d9738f73690dc04ebc", "text": "\"I would suggest you forget everything you learned in economics. The only applicable knowledge is Accounting 101. Step 1: An accrual basis financial statement. There is no step 2 if you don't do this. Most small business do everything cash basis. Simpler, cheaper but useless for analysis. You would get better answers from the local fortune teller than a cash basis statement. Make one change from the general rules. If you have debt or are paying interest for inventory include that in your cost of sales. This is actually proper but the rule is little known and often ignored. Interest on debt up to the amount of inventory is a cost of inventory. Step 2: Gross profit. If you seem to be working hard and still losing money it may be because you are selling products for less than they cost you. In this case the more you sell the more you lose. So suggestions like advertising or doing anything to increase sales are actually destructive. Step 3 Price products at the level necessary to turn a profit at current sales and overhead. 'When we have enough sales we will make a profit\"\" is the philosophy of a start up business. It is toxic for a going concern. Step 4 If sales are unsustainable at the price that produces a profit have the courage to sell or close the business. I have seen people waste their lives on futile endeavors just because they can't make that tough decision. Finally Step 0: Ignore all other suggestions but this. They are well meaning but ill informed. To reiterate, growing sales while losing money on every transaction is a huge mistake. Trends, books, charts and graphs, analytics and market research are the tools of con-men and fortune tellers. Business is arithmetic and nothing more or less. FYI if I don't get at least one upvote, this is the last time I am giving my valuable professional advice away for free on reddit. Folks will have to rely on the suggestions of their fellow college kids.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a673fcb56b419b6a87c7643e71729396", "text": "You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cf0c6ed1f95bedb09ad7b7b301a971d", "text": "However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "841f67a51fe5b559c4ce1db46e0b290f", "text": "The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything", "title": "" }, { "docid": "200fcef0533e0e0a2d7806632fc623de", "text": "\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac", "text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5578afe7b8b8fea73e4f1a44aea7c7e", "text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ee07f460a8a1fe9480e40afe4f4815", "text": "Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908", "text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e", "text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html", "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": "8c2ca979aeca71fecfc0e6504bfb98d4", "text": "\"You would add your daily earnings every day. For example, you work full time job (8 hours a day) at $20/hour. At the end of the 1st day of the month, you'd add $160 to your salary account. You've earned it, even though its still almost a month till you actually get paid. So its accrued. What if you don't get paid? You've accrued it already, its on your books, but not in your wallet. You might have paid taxes on it, etc. But you don't really have it. This is what is called \"\"bad debt\"\", and eventually, after you can show that the payee is not going to pay, you write it off - remove it from your books (and adjust your taxes etc that you paid on that income already). Generally, it is a very bad idea to use accrual method of accounting for an individual or a small business. For large volume business using accrual mode solves other accounting and revenue recognition problems.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "beea3f671766c0cef4427097bdc05788", "text": "Funds earned and spent before opening a dedicated business account should be classified according to their origination. For example, if your business received income, where did that money go? If you took the money personally, it would be considered either a 'distribution' or a 'loan' to you. It is up to you which of the two options you choose. On the flip side, if your business had an expense that you paid personally, that would be considered either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. If you choose to record these transactions as loans, you can offset them together, so you don't need two separate accounts, loan to you and loan from you. When the bank account was opened, the initial deposit came from where? If it came from your personal funds, then it is either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. From the sound of your question, you deposited what remained after the preceding income/expenses. This would, in effect, return the 'loan' account back to zero, if choosing that route. The above would also be how to record any expenses you may pay personally for the business (if any) in the future. Because these transactions were not through a dedicated business bank account, you can't record them in Quickbooks as checks and deposits. Instead, you can use Journal Entries. For any income received, you would debit your capital/loan account and credit your income account. For any expenses, you would debit the appropriate expense account and credit your distribution/loan account. Also, if setting up a loan account, you should choose either Current Asset or Current Liability type. The capital contribution and distribution account should be Equity type. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82556cf6dd6ff545b2163acfa5412108", "text": "\"An accounting general ledger is based on tracking your actual assets, liabilities, expenses, and income, and Gnucash is first and foremost a general ledger program. While it has some simple \"\"budgeting\"\" capabilities, they're primarily based around reporting how close your actual expenses were to a planned budget, not around forecasting eventual cash flow or \"\"saving\"\" a portion of assets for particular purposes. I think the closest concept to what you're trying to do is that you want to take your \"\"real\"\" Checking account, and segment it into portions. You could use something like this as an Account Hierarchy: The total in the \"\"Checking Account\"\" parent represents your actual amount of money that you might reconcile with your bank, but you have it allocated in your accounting in various ways. You may have deposits usually go into the \"\"Available funds\"\" subaccount, but when you want to save some money you transfer from that into a Savings subaccount. You could include that transfer as an additional split when you buy something, such as transferring $50 from Assets:Checking Account:Available Funds sending $45 to Expenses:Groceries and $5 to Assets:Checking Account:Long-term Savings. This can make it a little more annoying to reconcile your accounts (you need to use the \"\"Include Subaccounts\"\" checkbox), and I'm not sure how well it'd work if you ever imported transaction files from your bank. Another option may be to track your budgeting (which answers \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\") separately from your accounting (which only answers \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\"), using a different application or spreadsheet. Using Gnucash to track \"\"budget envelopes\"\" is kind of twisting it in a way it's not really designed for, though it may work well enough for what you're looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc05df9fc6e20481d08de42919c5f53", "text": "Almost every company I know of charges something like 2% per month on past due accounts. They are not financial institutions, so it's probably quite legal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead43a0afb4e63e37927a468c4bb83d3", "text": "I work at a large bank, that isn't too unusual although a lot of banks are moving to fee-free basic accounts and upping their fees on other specific transactions. For example, my bank did away with minimum balance requirements to waive a monthly service fee, but we started charging $2/month for paper statements and upped our out-of-network ATM fee by 50 cents. Would like to point out that most financial institutions will reorder your transactions slightly for the purposes of accounting. It is much easier to run all transactions in big batches at the end of the day than individually as they come in. Required disclosures you receive upon account opening explain the exact order but most banks do all credits (money in) first and then debits (money out) like checks, debit cards, and ACH payments after. If you overdraft you can usually avoid a fee if you make a cash deposit before the end of the business day as the cash will go into your account before your purchases are debited. OCCASIONALLY this accounting-based reordering will result in additional fees but that is not the intended purpose of reordering them. And I would always refund any incurred fees that happened due to accounting-based transaction reordering. What Wells Fargo is doing has been illegal since 2008 and their continued appeals are hoping to get the ruling overturned so they won't have to pay out restitution to affected customers. It's frankly despicable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf7b6129f6a8a9145f65dc426f9870e", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cff3f36f2120e361ca04e52d14060b0a", "text": "Mint.com does a pretty good job at this, for a free service, but it's mostly for personal finance. It looks at all of your transactions and tries to categorize them, and also allows you to create your own categories and filters. For example, when I started using it, it imported the last three months of my transactions and detected all of my 'coffee house' transactions. This is how I learned that I was spending about $90 a month going to Starbucks, rather than the $30 I had estimated. I know it's not a 'system' like an accounting outfit might use, but most accounting offices I've worked with have had their own home-brewed system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef447bc5079cc943ed5c464ac8dc883", "text": "Most likely your accounting is cash basis, not accrual, so it's pretty tough to do unless you resort to the dodgy methods discussed so often by the tax avoidance enthusiasts. There is a difference between a CPA service and a tax lawyer, perhaps you need to know one of the latter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "987be59025ba34d16ca1979d31c5d0a0", "text": "\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ebc364846535cd64021290e9b7af494", "text": "You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca0d0960c489824b3c77ea53171394db", "text": "There is a lot of depth that can go into this. Depends on how far you want to take this. Think u have the right idea... people who go the extra step get promoted. If prior reporting was very simple, u can build on it over time. I suggest starting with some Known Performance Indicators / KPIs since mgmt can understand those easier than detailed analysis. You can start with identifying metrics that matter. Probably total assets, avg account bal, average customer bal, avg # of accounts per customer, new deposits/withdrawal both gross and avg per account/customer, new/closed accounts. Once metrics are picked gather monthly (or whatever time period) and monitor/review month over month/year over year. PM if u want to discuss more. I have experience in data analytics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b571809824f8d4516f9f62c50bb3d418", "text": "\"I use the (gratis, libre) command-line program ledger for my personal accounts. It handles funds across accounts gracefully, through a feature called \"\"Virtual Accounts\"\". A transaction can add or subtract money from a virtual account, which need not balance with all the other entries in the transaction. Then it's just a matter of setting up reports to include or exclude these accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e", "text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f70a67d924690e27c7d881ed024bb809", "text": "From my experience, I opened a business account to handle my LLC which owns a rental property. The account process and features were similar to shopping for a personal checking account. There would be fees for falling below a minimum balance, and for wanting a paper statement. In my case, keeping $2000 avoids the fee, and I pull the statements online and save the PDFs. Once open for a certain amount of time, you might be able to get credit extended based on the money that flows through that account. The online access is similar to my personal checking, as is the sending of payments electronically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "977c491090bccd98c5020fd2ef786445", "text": "If you can live with managing the individual category amounts yourself, this is trivial. Just set up a spreadsheet listing each category (and a column for the total amount of money in the account), adding or subtracting as you deposit or withdraw money to the account. To the bank it will be just one (physical) account, but to you, it can be any number of (accounting asset) accounts. You can choose to keep a history, or not. It's all up to how complex you want to make it. It doesn't even have to be a spreadsheet - you can just as well do this on paper if you prefer that. But the computer makes it easier. I imagine most personal finance software will help you, too; I know GnuCash can be coaxed into doing this with only a bit of creativity, and it almost certainly isn't the only one. I do this myself and it works very well. I don't know but imagine that companies do it all the time: there is no reason why there must be a one-to-one relationship between bank accounts and accounting asset accounts, and in fact, doing so would probably quickly become impractical.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "35aaffba3f98b7aff50ff88169631ef8", "text": "\"VIV.PA - is Vivendi listed on a stock exchange in Paris VIVEF - is Vivendi listed on the OTC Other Exchange. VIVHY - is Listed on the OTC:Pink Sheets. A company can be listed on multiple exchanges, they are known as a dual-listed company. It's a corporate structure in which two corporations function as a single operating business through a legal equalization agreement, but retain separate legal identities and stock exchange listings. Pretty much all DLCs are cross-border, and have tax advantages for the corporations and their stockholders. When a DLC is created, in essence two companies are created and have two separate bodies of shareholders, but they agree to share all the risks and rewards of the ownership of all their operating businesses in a fixed proportion, laid out in a contract called an \"\"equalization agreement\"\". The shares of a DLC parents have claim to the exact same underlying cash flows. So in theory the stock prices of these companies should move exactly the same. However in practice there can be differences between these prices. More info on OTC exchanges can be found here - keep in mind this info is from the company that runs these listings. Over the counter stocks are held to a FAR lesser regulation standard. I would recommend doing further interdependent research before pursuing any action.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6f0d1e3a8dd15b888066fde636118e1f", "text": "What's wrong with WIX? I've heard some good and bad about it. I signed up for it because it's cheap concerning how I didn't know how well this would even do at all. I was going to move to Shopify if I got bigger and had more funds to start. For the last response, how would I research how competitive the market is for organic search? Again, I'm such a noob and am starting from little knowledge, please bear with me here. Haha.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b97c67c2ebbaa8d104825ed1ff287d", "text": "Satya has amazingly turned MS around. They were the laughing stock of most developers for many years but have picked up a number of big name developers, released a lot of great developer tools and are starting to be relevant again. It's an amazing transformation and for the first time in my life I'm looking forward to what they do next.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b1fca134a9157d368e70fe5b9e4b30b", "text": "Did I have a reading comprehension fail? What I got out of the article as the fact that they're shedding users, but nothing about *why*. It is a fairly deep question, their games were incredibly popular, and addictive, a few months ago. It could say something profound about the way people use casual games and social networks. Or maybe it because Zynga's method of doing A/B testing on minor variations of the game, then choosing the version that captured more of the ~~victim~~ user's time and testing another minor variation the next day, doesn't make their games entertaining for long. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure anyone who plays Farmville by choice is fundamentally immune to boredom.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6142904211a069630ec65e91a718b8b", "text": "\"Wait a second, I can't be the first to notice this, near the top of the article: The internal contents, however, were often the exact same English words being read by their classmates buying high-priced US editions. but later farther down: In cases where goods were actually produced abroad— this brings up the very definition of *produced* for \"\"intellectual property\"\", to my mind the mere fact that it is printed outside of the country is simply a logistical convenience. If in fact it was written by a U.S. author living in the U.S. then it *wasn't* actually produced abroad. Same goes for U.S. *produced* software in foreign manufactured goods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57c101ec08c7c5e233db5fa74279c298", "text": "I quit the company during the Nadella transition. I was a Site Reliability Engineer, and my entire discipline was gutted and tossed at the company, as were the testers. Maybe it's been good for consumers, but the way it was handled internally, with an indefinite stream of reorganizations and middle management competition, just made it a terrible place to work. When I left, I had been through 9-10 reorganizations in as many months. Every time I'd get a project or a service to work on, we'd get moved. Most of my coworkers left for Amazon, some left the field entirely. I hope it's better now, nobody deserves that. Windows Server 2016 was one of the worst builds I've ever worked with, and I have been really happy to stop supporting the OS entirely. The docker gaps in particular in the windows ecosystem seem pretty significant, and languages that don't run on Linux seem antiquated and useless because of pressures from cloud platforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d76fadccd5c00848bce6f788765e133", "text": "The website likely has no differentiation. I am hoping, however, the service does. I'm not looking to break down a fledgling business plan, I am just looking for information on how and where to build or buy a website that performs thusly: Company creates account and posts the service they can provide, Consumer applies for said service, I deal with some required middle-man work which is at the cost of the consumer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd61977d4cd678ac0b628f96eb76b590", "text": "For our company, we use Microsoft Enterprise E5 as it allows us to communicate easier, manage projects and information, assign tasks, etc. As there's only 3 of us it works well but comes at a cost of £30 each per month. As it sounds as though it's only you on your own you should check out Trello. We were using Trello previously but communication between us wasn't great on there and it got too cluttered way too fast. For setting personal goals and tasks it's perfect, especially as the basic account is free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8917d2a97c7a8b005cb913c4040f4cd6", "text": "Are you asking me for my review? The iPad3 feels *generally* buggy and slow. The iPad2 is faster. It also felt like a proper evolution of the iPad. The iPad3 doesn't. It doesn't feel like a better iPad2. It's noticeably heavier and slower, and mine has crashed twice in the last week. The fact that I have an iPad3 and iPad2 side-by-side leaves me disappointed. The Playbook is lighter than the iPad3- it's about half the size. The picture isn't as nice. It doesn't have Skype. The user interface is nicer. It has a better spreadsheet and email client and ssh client. It doesn't require a separate SIM (it tethers to my phone). It has a good *feel* to it, and is comfortable in my hands. It hasn't crashed on me yet. On my commute I use the playbook, and not the iPad3. The iPad3 gets used largely for Facetime and Skype while at my office. I generally *enjoy* using the Playbook over the iPad3.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "307cd4608de31d374355449865dc6e2e", "text": "It takes some time for folks to renegotiate contracts and adjust policies in the commercial realm. It's never as easy as simply going to a different web page. The different buearus have slightly different ways of scoring people, different APIs to integrate with everyone's software, and take somewhat different things into account. That takes some time to change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f826f42e4b7454bfedd1142631d13ff8", "text": "Without giving away any important details needlessly, I was pointing out that there are some fundamental things that we will offer. After speaking with a user experience strategist, we came to an interesting market research finding, which reported that the majority of service providers are registered to a multiple number of platforms. As well as this we are targeting a niche that will offer us the ability to be dominant, eventually phasing in new sectors/industries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e7c3a26b6153ffe8a35dd1c43fe2530", "text": "I have encoded videos that we watch via Apple TV XBMC on our overpriced Sony Bravia LCD in one room and a cheap Acer LCD in another. They look amazingly different on these two screens. Same movie, same playback unit, same HDMI connection, different TVs. The Sony presents a smooth display with few artifacts. Good motion, clean image on pause, etc. The Acer displays tons of MPEG encoding artifacts, palletized chunks in what should be smooth gradients, visible in motion as well as paused. I'm just saying that there is a different in what you get when you pay more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91c4b2e51e9bb05737984e4cc571f52e", "text": "The quality of the discs generated through this process is definitely higher than the quality of the discs produced through duplication. On the contrary, in the process of CD/DVD replication, each disc is paid individual attention and the result is no compatibility issues and no lags too.Some clients might take this as lack of professionalism, but on the contrary, there is no such issue related to those being replicated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e23758d4894ddc7d8ede41c7cbf96ffa", "text": "Al igual que la fidelidad del cliente, la “lealtad” a una marca está cuestionada. Cómo valora el público tus marcas está cambiando, garantía de desempeño y diferenciación se están volviendo más relevantes. Las variaciones en los hábitos de consumo y en las relaciones empresa-cliente afectan estas valuaciones. El principal activo de tu marca es la garantía que le provee al consumidor sobre la satisfacción de sus expectativas. Proporciona seguridad en el proceso de decisión de compra, lo hace más fácil. Antes la gente adquiría una marca “conocida” pues brindaba confianza en su desempeño y el costo de conseguir referencias sobre productos sustitutos era alto. Hoy la información satura la Internet y los medios de comunicación, las opiniones positivas y negativas se diseminan rápidamente en la web. La publicidad pierde credibilidad y solo satisfacer al cliente mejor que la competencia cada día te permitirá mantener el valor de tu marca.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10933bb99c626acdbfe828d99f8773ce", "text": "I have found that using the online version can help determine the correct product. Try Deluxe online, you can upload the data from last year. When you get to the key forms see what happens if you don't switch. Then switch to Premiere. Compare the results.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954276916601e045c4af374e917586a0", "text": "Yes you are right. The cannibalisation comment was for opening up every pricing point. The article is quite specific to app pricing published by an individual. It doesn't apply to say a food product or a durable being brought to the market. A thing on the last comment. Wondows may sell three versions but the distinction is there and clear. A light version, a regular version and an enterprise version. They are labelled pretty much the same as Home, Professional and Enterprise. Good marketing or names to distinguish between the products. Different needs for different products. An app is priced much less and uses can be trivial (yet invovled).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2672f85e33b709f4dbbffabf875d2251", "text": "I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c62a9ef6ddf8a9f66d4ec1c669245f41", "text": "\"Basically, unless you are an investment professional, you should not be investing in a venture in a developing country shown to you by someone else. The only time you should be investing in a developing country is if a \"\"lightbulb\"\" goes off in your head and you say to yourself, \"\"With my engineering background, I can develop this machine/process/concept that will work better in this country than anywhere else in the world.\"\" And then run it yourself. (That's what Michael Dell, a computer repairman, did for \"\"made to order\"\" computers in the United States, and \"\"the rest is history.\"\") E.g. if you want to invest in \"\"real estate\"\" in a developing country, you might design a \"\"modular home\"\" out of local materials, tailored to local tastes, and selling for less than local equivalents, based on a formula that you know better than anyone else in the world. And then team up with a local who can sell it for you. Whatever you do, don't \"\"invest\"\" and revisit it in 10-15 years. It will be gone.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "727ec7e08991ba4b8ade95fe69692451", "text": "That's because our financial sector is mainly an instrument to aggregate cash rather than a way to foster innovation and growth. They already have so much cash in their control that other sectors are starving. Some worthwhile endeavors are not the ones that are going to make the greatest returns, some will not show returns for a very long time. Typically these are are undertaken by the government, but the government is being reduced to a blunt object used to secure resources and markets and to protect investments. So maybe we need a second-tier investment sector that works with longer time lines, and low immediate returns and perhaps even domestic micro-loan/grants. /ramble", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b79409d008694846d99a18cb967006dd", "text": "yeah - the point is why should any foreign investor trust you with their money? just because Bangladesh might have a hot housing market, doesn't make you a reliable or trustworthy partner. Maybe if you were an established and reputable real estate investor this post might get traction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0ef2d08b8155091a2bdd9b7a105c42", "text": "It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years. So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.", "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": "ca7c58191513c4cb7c05c0d16933d67c", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/german-g20-investment-framework-for-africa-by-wolfgang-schauble-2017-06) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The CWA offers interested African countries the opportunity to improve conditions for private investment, including in infrastructure. &gt; The CWA&amp;#039;s structure is straightforward: African countries, together with their bilateral partners and international financial organizations with proven expertise on Africa, will jointly develop, coordinate, and implement tailor-made measures. &gt; With the upcoming G20 Africa Partnership Conference in Berlin on June 12-13, we will provide a platform for these African countries to reach out to investors in order to enhance the continent&amp;#039;s engagement with the private sector. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fxdgr/wolfgang_shauble_africa_has_an_enormous_economic/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~139006 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **country**^#1 **African**^#2 **CWA**^#3 **Africa**^#4 **G20**^#5\"", "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": "24f0a3aeb40d5e614b4f030e8c60320b", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/12/Public-Investment-Scaling-up-and-Debt-Sustainability-The-Case-of-Energy-Sector-Investments-44943) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. &gt; This paper proposes a bottom-up approach to assess large public investments that are potentially self-financing and reflect their impact in macro-fiscal projections that underpin the IMF&amp;#039;s Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework. &gt; Using the case of energy sector investments in Caribbean countries, the paper shows how to avoid biases against good projects that pay off over long horizons and ensure that transformative investments are not sacrificed to myopic assessments of debt sustainability risks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gydz6/imfpublic_investment_scalingup_and_debt/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~142844 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*: **IMF**^#1 **investment**^#2 **paper**^#3 **debt**^#4 **sustainability**^#5\"", "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": "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": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5", "text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecc829e44d10e0c8b04e51d2ec5afa0", "text": "I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b59e1f0e5f5d21adf082959ab5a20dbb", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27944) reduced by 56%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Bringing e-Money to the Poor: Successes and Failures examines the lessons of success from four country case studies of &amp;quot;Gazelles&amp;quot;―Kenya, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Thailand―that leapt from limitation to innovation by successfully enabling the deployment of e-money technology. &gt; These countries have thereby transformed the landscape of financial access to their poor. &gt; Because technology is not a silver bullet, the case studies also explore other strategic elements that need to be in place for a country to expand access to financial services through digital technology. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vuj7f/bringing_emoney_to_the_poorpdf/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~198017 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*: **access**^#1 **country**^#2 **e-money**^#3 **technology**^#4 **financial**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92664171cbac80df44882c5012735c78", "text": "There are many Shariah compliant investments, so that could direct your resulting searches. Shariah compliance is a very strict interpretation of Islam and for investing offers strict guidelines in what to invest in and excludes investments in companies that engage in certain businesses such as gambling, tobacco, pork and trading of gold and silver on a deferred basis (and more). Many multinational financial service companies such as the Standard & Poors (S&P) offer Shariah Compliant funds and indices, as such, it makes it easier to invest in a variety of different assets through them. You can also look at their fund's constituents and invest in those assets directly. Secondly, going back to your original question about a compound interest equivalent, you can look at the products offered by Shariah Compliant banks. Now, if it is really important for you to adhere to the strictest interpretations of your faith, you should know that most Islamic Banks have interest bearing assets within them and that they disguise that fact. The global financial system is based on interest bearing instruments such as bonds, and Islamic banks are large holders and issuers of those instruments, and all of their consumer products are also based on the interest rates of them. Even convoluted alternatives such as Islamic mortgages, where they are advertised as non-interest bearing equivalents, many times are also the interest bearing version. Unfortunately, these lies are enough for the banks to continue to get business from their target audiences, but outside of Islam this is a very standard and stable business practice. The point is that you should look very carefully at the alternatives you find.", "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": "c6d5c19eaa0665e82e44ae513025b627", "text": "\"Shariah compliant investments attempt to achieve your \"\"ethical investing\"\" ideals. Many countries around the world have a long list of shariah compliant investments and lots of journalists will go great lengths to reveal when a company is not really shariah compliant. Standard & Poors (S&P), an American financial services company, hosts a Shariah compliant index too, but on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada due to the Islamaphobia rampant in the United States. But of course, international companies are indifferent to any single country's social problems, and in your new pastime as an international speculator you will get the same luxury too and exemption from the political spectrum. S&P/TSX 60 information can be found here: http://web.tmxmoney.com/tmx_indices.php?section=tsx&index=%5ETXSI Business sectors prohibited from the Shariah index include: Gambling, Pornography, Tobacco, amongst others. In the United States, the concept has been renamed \"\"B-Corporation\"\" (a play on the federal term C-Corporation and S-Corporation), and has garnered enough of a movement that several states have created these as entities people can actually register them with the state, but these are not recognized as \"\"B-Corporations\"\" to the federal government. Shariah compliant investments will be easier to find worldwide, due to the popularity of the associated religion.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "96085ed5e9764b4c6311102d80047902", "text": "Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting worse news.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e69f451f12482deb58cb22d96eafef6", "text": "A company's stock price will reflect the general sentiment about a company's value now and in the future. Net income is only one figure. You need to crack open the net summary and see what's inside it. In the financials you reference in your question (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/FTNT/financials), you'll also notice that Ultimately, the stock price is just a reflection on what the market feels its (current) future is worth (you, me, other investors with future value calculators and strong opinions on what would provide value for them).", "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": "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": "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": "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": "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": "974603438efffb44dbeb13d6df665925", "text": "I don’t know specifics of the situation but one possibility would be that Buffett may have billions in various assets etc companies he owns, stocks bonds, but if he doesn’t sell any of those stocks or cash in any of those bonds, then on paper he didn’t make any money that year because he’s letting the assets appreciate. I would say net income is the amount of income you claimed that year, so if you had sold some stock, the amount of money you sold them for would be your income. As opposed to net worth being “if they wanted to” if Buffett sold all of his stocks and assets, he would be able to get billions for it. So while he technically is worth billions, on his tax returns he doesn’t claim much income.", "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": "0905df12631772350b672e32f143dc23", "text": "Here are a few things I've already done, and others reading this for their own use may want to try. It is very easy to find a pattern in any set of data. It is difficult to find a pattern that holds true in different data pulled from the same population. Using similar logic, don't look for a pattern in the data from the entire population. If you do, you won't have anything to test it against. If you don't have anything to test it against, it is difficult to tell the difference between a pattern that has a cause (and will likely continue) and a pattern that comes from random noise (which has no reason to continue). If you lose money in bad years, that's okay. Just make sure that the gains in good years are collectively greater than the losses in bad years. If you put $10 in and lose 50%, you then need a 100% gain just to get back up to $10. A Black Swan event (popularized by Nassim Taleb, if memory serves) is something that is unpredictable but will almost certainly happen at some point. For example, a significant natural disaster will almost certainly impact the United States (or any other large country) in the next year or two. However, at the moment we have very little idea what that disaster will be or where it will hit. By the same token, there will be Black Swan events in the financial market. I do not know what they will be or when they will happen, but I do know that they will happen. When building a system, make sure that it can survive those Black Swan events (stay above the death line, for any fellow Jim Collins fans). Recreate your work from scratch. Going through your work again will make you reevaluate your initial assumptions in the context of the final system. If you can recreate it with a different medium (i.e. paper and pen instead of a computer), this will also help you catch mistakes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879c0735767dce73815b86de9e6871b6", "text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf8488ef41130233fcc63a7b933a6fdf", "text": "So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "04981ace31d06259a6ce292baf8a6279", "text": "I expected a word or two on the price elasticity of demand here :) Andrey, Your question needs slight revision in its current form. Rising prices actually do not mean increased profitability for a company. The quantity they sell also pays a huge part and actually is correlated to the price at which they sell the goods (and other factors such as the price at which their competitor sells the goods etc., but we will ignore it for simplicity). The net profit of sales for any firm is equal to (Qty x Sale Price) - COGS - SG&A - taxes - other expenses where, COGS means cost of goods sold SG&A means sales, general and admin costs (e.g., cleaning the inventory storage area daily so that the goods stay fresh etc.) other expenses include any miscellaneous other costs that the firm incurs to make the sale. Now, if everything in that equation remains same (COGS, SG&A, taxes, and other expenditures), rising prices will only translate into a higher profit if the quantity does not fall by the same margin. Prices may also rise simply as a response to risking COGS, SG&A or other expenditures --the latter may be observed in inflationary environments. In such a case, the supplying firm can end up losing its profit margin if the quantity falls by more than the price rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca1721378cefa9bb81033071f689d90", "text": "Auto-correlation is a statistical concept for measuring repeating patterns in series. In stocks it is of particular interest as if future prices can be reliably guessed from past prices a lot of money could be made. Note, even in cases where auto-correlations are high and persistent (near 1) there is still some possibility that the next time period would be down even if the previous period was up. Now the important part here is that high and persistent auto-correlation also means once the price falls the next period the price is also more likely to fall! Once one period was down the next period is more likely to be down so the price does not need to go to infinity. Instead, it generally would display up and down trends. Now, the key word above for investing is persistence. For stocks, auto-correlations are, at best, weakly persistent at reasonable time scales. So, even if a stock was highly auto-correlated during a previous period it is tough to make consistent money off of trading on these past trending patterns. This does not mean some people don't try...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ffa2801a53684aa4778439927170236", "text": "As others have pointed out, the value of Apple's stock and the NASDAQ are most likely highly correlated for a number of reasons, not least among them the fact that Apple is part of the NASDAQ. However, because numerous factors affect the entire market, or at least a significant subset of it, it makes sense to develop a strategy to remove all of these factors without resorting to use of an index. Using an index to remove the effect of these factors might be a good idea, but you run the risk of potentially introducing other factors that affect the index, but not Apple. I don't know what those would be, but it's a valid theoretical concern. In your question, you said you wanted to subtract them from each other, and only see an Apple curve moving around a horizontal line. The basic strategy I plan to use is similar but even simpler. Instead of graphing Apple's stock price, we can plot the difference between its stock price on business day t and business day t-1, which gives us this graph, which is essentially what you're looking for: While this is only the preliminaries, it should give you a basic idea of one procedure that's used extensively to do just what you're asking. I don't know of a website that will automatically give you such a metric, but you could download the price data and use Excel, Stata, etc. to analyze this. The reasoning behind this methodology builds heavily on time series econometrics, which for the sake of simplicity I won't go into in great detail, but I'll provide a brief explanation to satisfy the curious. In simple econometrics, most time series are approximated by a mathematical process comprised of several components: In the simplest case, the equations for a time series containing one or more of the above components are of the form that taking the first difference (the procedure I used above) will leave only the random component. However, if you want to pursue this rigorously, you would first perform a set of tests to determine if these components exist and if differencing is the best procedure to remove those that are present. Once you've reduced the series to its random component, you can use that component to examine how the process underlying the stock price has changed over the years. In my example, I highlighted Steve Jobs' death on the chart because it's one factor that may have led to the increased standard deviation/volatility of Apple's stock price. Although charts are somewhat subjective, it appears that the volatility was already increasing before his death, which could reflect other factors or the increasing expectation that he wouldn't be running the company in the near future, for whatever reason. My discussion of time series decomposition and the definitions of various components relies heavily on Walter Ender's text Applied Econometric Time Series. If you're interested, simple mathematical representations and a few relevant graphs are found on pages 1-3. Another related procedure would be to take the logarithm of the quotient of the current day's price and the previous day's price. In Apple's case, doing so yields this graph: This reduces the overall magnitude of the values and allows you to see potential outliers more clearly. This produces a similar effect to the difference taken above because the log of a quotient is the same as the difference of the logs The significant drop depicted during the year 2000 occurred between September 28th and September 29th, where the stock price dropped from 26.36 to 12.69. Apart from the general environment of the dot-com bubble bursting, I'm not sure why this occurred. Another excellent resource for time series econometrics is James Hamilton's book, Time Series Analysis. It's considered a classic in the field of econometrics, although similar to Enders' book, it's fairly advanced for most investors. I used Stata to generate the graphs above with data from Yahoo! Finance: There are a couple of nuances in this code related to how I defined the time series and the presence of weekends, but they don't affect the overall concept. For a robust analysis, I would make a few quick tweaks that would make the graphs less appealing without more work, but would allow for more accurate econometrics.", "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": "918130a1c8eeb5200beae8679af18034", "text": "Reading the plan documentation, yes, that is what it means. Each purchase by bank debit, whether one-time or automatic, costs $2 plus $0.06 per share; so if you invested $50, you would get slightly less than $48 in stock as a result (depending on the per-share price). Schedule of Fees Purchases – A one-time $15.00 enrollment fee to establish a new account for a non-shareholder will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Dividend reinvestment: The Hershey Company pays the transaction fee and per share* fee on your behalf. – Each optional cash purchase by one-time online bank debit will entail a transaction fee of $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – Each optional cash purchase by check will entail a transaction fee of $5.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – If funds are automatically deducted from your checking or savings account, the transaction fee is $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. Funds will be withdrawn on the 10th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 10th is not a business day. – Fees will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Returned check and rejected ACH debit fee is $35.00.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "27422fabde8fe2c027e46f3b8a9091c2", "text": "Wealthsimple lists their prices as follows: Those are the fees you pay over and above what you pay for the underlying ETFs' management fees. But why not just invest in the ETFs yourself? The Canadian Couch Potato website shows some sample portfolios. The ETF option has an average Management Expense Ratio very similar to that of the ETFs used by Wealthsimple, but without the additional management fee. Rebalance once or twice a year and you cut your fees from approximately 0.57% (if investing mid-six-figures) to 0.17%, for very little work. Is it worth it to you? Well, that depends on how much you have to invest, and how much effort you are willing to put in. Wealthsimple isn't particularly unreasonable with their fees, but the fees do look a bit high once you are in to the six figures of investing. On the other hand, I often recommend Tangerine's mutual funds to my friends who are looking at investing for retirement. Those mutual funds, last time I checked, cost 1.09%. That's about twice what Wealthsimple is charging. But they are easy to understand and easy to invest in; a good choice for my friends looking to invest $1,000 - $50,000 in my opinion. So, and understanding this is just my personal opinion, I think Wealthsimple fits in a niche where Tangerine mutual funds carry too high a cost for you, but you don't want to do all the management yourself, even if this is just an hour or so of work, a couple of times a year. I wish they were cheaper, but their pricing makes sense for a lot of people in my opinion. Do they make sense for you? If you are looking at investing less than $10,000, I'd stick with an option like Tangerine, only because that's an easier option. If investing more than $100,000 or $200,000, I think you are paying a bit much for what they offer. But, many people pay much, much, much more for their investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e60c30bb513745a94722a086cfa2fad4", "text": "\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cd26d742c20c768e4ca24448d556523", "text": "If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb84e724bb226333f80ea5fc01b6df45", "text": "\"In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a \"\"small balance\"\" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a0af1c2c1b6c26dbc6f6d137d149688", "text": "There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly mentioned as a deduction on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates. (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f94c2aedfcae7a40f3f9d639c2e702a", "text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9f85f2ca6676707e825954304d4e8ed", "text": "You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7c8115416ff9f0bb1c0fe23627ab8ab", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a0bf6bc65d807b555cb98d1d2a6053", "text": "Your best bet is to remove the excess contribution. Your broker should have forms to do that. There is a 6% tax on the excess contributions for each year that it remains uncorrected. It would be better to just eat the $25 fee and get rid of any future headaches.", "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": "8ab91520c2ca608ff5b18cef8bc8bc97", "text": "\"What are reasonable administrative fees for an IRA? was recently discussed here. My answer was zero. An IRA is not an investment, it's a container representing the tax status of an account. Once you decide what to actually invest it in, you'll likely incur additional fees. Mutual funds, for instance can range from .05% per year to 2.00% or more. In your case, you are telling us you are spending 2% per year even before you decide what to invest in. The real question I'd like to see answered is \"\"what value can an advisor bring to one's retirement account to deserve a 2%/year fee?\"\" My final thought - most financial types had been suggesting that a retiree can target a 4% per year withdrawal after retiring. This rule of thumb has been debated since the lost decade of 2000-2009, and the safe number may be lower. If an advisor is taking 2% off the top, you are basically sharing half your income with him. A million dollar IRA, you get $20K, he gets $20K?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c5700d815d1ffe9510d788c7d2f1a85", "text": "Yes, assuming that your cash flow is constantly of size 5 and initial investment is 100, the following applies: IRR of 5% over 3 years: Value of CashFlows: 4.7619 + 4.5351 + 4.3192 = 13.6162 NPV: 100 - 13.6162 = 86.3838 Continuous compounding: 86.3838 * (1.05^3) = 100", "title": "" }, { "docid": "767b1dc8168c2f5921549d593189f0dc", "text": "\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1eee4f33571648fb95733b26e6f5736", "text": "\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "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": "fe0f1c2a8bf6e4fd44a3cfb97431fc68", "text": "I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity. As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure. Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake. Instead you should focus on two things. The first is your core business, which is signal processing. Work and strive to be the best you can. Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low. As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you. You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model. I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference. You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600. Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15ac15ca148e17f5a75a459168f7c48", "text": "a) Contracts are for future delivery of said underlying. So if you are trading CL (crude oil) futures and don't sell before delivery date, you will be contacted about where you want the oil to be delivered (a warehouse presumably). 1 contract is the equivalent of 1000 barrels. b) 600 contracts depends entirely on what you are trading and how you are trading. If you are trading ES (S&P 500 e-Mini), you can do the 600 contracts in less than a second. c) No fees does not make particular sense. It's entirely possible that you are not trading anything, it's just a fake platform so they can judge your performance. d) The catch typically is that when it's time to pay you, they will avoid you or worst case, disappear. e) Trading is a full-time job, especially for the first 4-5 years when you're only learning the basics. Remember, in futures trading you are trading against all the other professionals who do only this 24/7 for decades. If you are only risking your time with the reward being learning and possibly money, it seems like a good deal. There's typically a catch with these things - like you would have to pay for your data which is very expensive or withdrawing funds is possible only months later.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5a338ebdb92ecbd338fe1fd5cc1f2582", "text": "Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a195aa123226790c73bc1995aee219f8", "text": "\"Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the \"\"filters\"\", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins). A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0479838bc285731ab73100727a2ccdb6", "text": "Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.", "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": "41edaece3a849c76e79e57d348b0c2b5", "text": "No, CFD is not viable as a long term trading strategy. You have a minimum margin to maintain, and you are given X days to top up your margin should you not meet the margin requirements. Failure to meet margin requirements will result in a forced sell where you are no longer able to hold onto the stock. A long term trading strategy is where you hold onto the stock through the bad times of the company and keep it long enough to see the good times. However, with CFD, you may be forced to sell before you see the good times. In addition, you incur additional lending charges (e.g. 4%-6%) for the ability to leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b5eaed08c1cfa0ee6679393252ffd58", "text": "Both of these are futures contracts on the Ibovespa Brasil Sao Paulo Stock Exchange Index; the mini being exactly that, a mini version (or portion) of the regular futures contract. The mini counterpart makes trading the index more affordable to individual investors and hence increase liquidity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f", "text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3539d10c4d9b8ee4cb6d011696498707", "text": "If you have your long positions established and are investing responsibly (assuming you know the risks and can accept them), the next step IMO is typically learning hedging - using options or option strategies to solidify positions. Collars (zero cost) and put options are a good place to start your education and they can be put to use to both speculate (what you are effectively doing with short-position trading) or long-term oriented edging. Day trading equites can be lucrative but it is a difficult game to play - learning options (while more complex on speculation) can provide opportunities to solidify positions. Options trading is difficult grounds. I just think the payoff long term to knowing options is much greater than day-trading tactics (because of versatility)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d1f1268fe00eb1e8f19c139ad9d8d02", "text": "There's a whole industry devoted to this. Professionals use Bloomberg terminals. High Frequency Traders have computers read news feeds for them. Amateurs use trading consoles (like Thinkorswim) to get headlines quickly on stocks.", "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": "df7fcd1a81102f1a96ffe8c8bfdb0914", "text": "\"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d543352da5684e0abf86a67db2d0da2c", "text": "I'm not sure if they're less risky. Maybe I'm being naive, but I feel they're less manipulated. I wouldn't say I have any hard resources other than dicking around on cmegroup,com. I pay a ton for my daily newsletters so I can't just start forwarding those. I tend to stay away from strategy books, but Mark Fisher's The Logical Trader is decent. Futures I feel are more of an experience than strategy trade. Especially the spreads. This is where systems come to die.", "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": "66dbe5aa78abf16b575a49b7483f9b3b", "text": "Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1", "text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "66a7fd9c6e89a27c21e0f26e9c8e3d06", "text": "\"Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it. A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine. Emergency also expands up to \"\"I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.\"\" Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession. In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI. The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market. Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent? One last point. Index fund ETFs are not \"\"safe.\"\" Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e42eb3ea9a05e96191e2a1ab5b50adcb", "text": "My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c009824d600a359938973082715984", "text": "\"There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say \"\"now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back.\"\" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf43f2321a84a27029a6e197426ed56", "text": "You're absolutely correct. If you have maxed out your retirement investment vehicles and have some additional investments in a regular taxable account, you can certainly use that as an emergency source of funds without much downside. (You can borrow from many retirement account but there are downsides.) Sure, you risk selling at a loss when/if you need the money, but I'd rather take the risk and take advantage of the investment growth that I would miss if I kept my emergency fund in cash or money market. And you can choose how much risk you're willing to take on when you invest the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f694ed0f5dd14110332cd21255788977", "text": "From a budgeting perspective, the emergency fund is a category in which you've budgeted funds for the unexpected. These are things that weren't able to be predicted and budgeted for in advance, or things that exceeded the expected costs. For example you might budget $150 per month for car maintenance, and typically spend some of it while the rest builds up over time for unexpected repairs, so you have a few hundred available for that. But this month your transmission died and you have a $3,000 bill. You'll then fund most of this out of your emergency fund. This doesn't cover where to store that money though, which leads me to my next point. Emergencies are emergencies because they come without warning, without you having a chance to plan. Thefore the primary things you want in an emergency fund account are stability and quick access. You can structure investments to be whatever you think of as safe or stable but you don't want to be thinking about whether it's a good time to sell when you need the money right now. But the bigger problem is access. When you need the funds on a weekend, holiday, anytime outside of market hours, you're not going to be able to just sell some stocks and go to an ATM. This is the reason why it's recommended to have these funds in a checking or savings account usually. The reason I mentioned the budgeting side first is because I wanted to point out that if you're budgeting well, most of the unexpected expenses you have should have been expected in a sense; you can still plan for something without knowing when or if it will happen. So in the example of a car repair, ideally you're already budgeting for possible repairs, if you own a home you're budgeting for things that would go wrong, budgeting for speeding tickets, for surprise out of pocket medical costs, etc. These then become part of your normal budget: they aren't part of the emergency fund anymore. The bright side about budgeting for something unexpected is that you know what that money is for, and do you likely also know how quickly you'll need it. For example you know if you have unexpected medical costs that happen very quickly, you're not likely you need a bag of cash on a moment's notice. So those last two points lead to the fact that your actual emergency fund, the dollars that are for things you simply could not foresee, will be relatively small. A few thousand dollars or so in most cases. If you've got things structured like this, you'll be happy to have a few grand available at a moment's notice. The bulk of the money you would use for other surprise expenses (or things like 6 months of living expenses) is represented in other specific categories and you already know the timeframe in which you need it (probably enough time that it could be invested, risk to taste). In short: by expecting the unexpected, you can sidestep this issue and not worry so much about missed returns on the emergency fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c33bf1dbc4fda12b28dadf262162d4b", "text": "\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2862e6c7df5b16e84cf1d1eb56291d89", "text": "I treat the concept of emergency funds as a series of financial buffers. One layer is that I have various credit cards with a small positive balance, that I can max out in an emergency should I go broke and not be in employment (those have saved me once or twice) My final level of emergency funds, is kept at home in the form of cash, I've never needed it, but it protects against getting locked out of the financial system (I lose my debit cards, banking system freezes all withdrawals, zombie invasion). It also doubles as my destitution fund, as if all else fails I still have raw cash to buy food and thus I won't starve (at least for a few months).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0756241e8bf8cc0afd2d37e379c09505", "text": "Let me first start by defining an emergency fund. This is money which is: Because emergency's usually need to be deal with ASAP, boiler breaks, gears box in a car. Generally you need these to be solved as soon as possible, because ou depend on these things working and you can't budget for this type of expenditure using just your monthly salary. This is a personal opinion but I prefer investment types that don't have another fee on access. I really don't like having another fee on top on money that I need right now. Investment Options: Market based investments should be seen as long term investments, therefore they do not really satisfy requirement one, they can also have broker fees, therefore you might pay a small extra charge for taking money out, and so do not satisfy requirement two. Investment Options for Emergency Funds You want to get the best return on your money even if it's your emergency fund. So use regular saving accounts, but from you emergency fund or use tax effective savings accounts, like a cash ISA if based in the UK. Don't think of an emergency money as just sitting there, you have options just makes sure the options fit the requirements. UPDATE Given feedback I appreciate there are levels of emergency fund, the above details things which might be about 1-2 month salary in cost, car repairs, leaks, boiler repairs. Now I have another fund which is in P2P funds which is higher risk than a deposit account but then gives me a better return and is less subject to market fluctuations and it would be the place I go to for loss of job level emergencies say 6 months of salary, this takes a bit longer to access but given I have the above emergency fund I have given myself time to get the money from the P2P account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82a400b4e1f10bedb37481dda36b702a", "text": "It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d7f244020437e6a98abac60a57ca848", "text": "While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55bcedf9148ed62eafa72d0c3547db05", "text": "\"The mix how how you present this feels contradictory. You would pull a 'major' portion from the emergency fund (EF), but at the same time, you'll replace it in a month. The first bit scares me, this is not the purpose of that fund, and the issue is the aspect of money that's psychological. Money is a habit, if you justify this use of the EF now, it gets progressively easier for this purchase or that, and the fund loses its intended purpose. If the second half is accurate, that your income would replace that money in a month, i'd say the fund wasn't fully funded to its proper level, 6-9 months of all expenses to get you though issues as bad as a job loss. The great thing I see in your question is what's missing. You're not looking to buy a car with a loan. That puts you in a good situation, and should push those answering to cut you some slack on the one month \"\"bridge loan\"\" from your own savings. Edit - OP add 2 key points, His EF is 3 years expenses (wow, kudos to him!), but he's living like a student (i.e. with parents, which keeps his costs low). If this latter observation seems judgmental, I'll re-edit. The finances of everyone would be far better off if we adopted multigenerational living. The young could save as Fahad is doing, and when parents retire, they can know they are cared for. In the US, I'd say \"\"when you move out, your expenses will go up drastically,\"\" but in this case, that may not happen, or not soon. This is my observation the world is a big place and our answers need to fit the OP's situation, not assume our own standards apply to all. Buy the better car. You saved. You earned it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36e643c89da53b0e2d4622950dd89045", "text": "I would disagree with your analysis. To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses. Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy. You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds. For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles. I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market. After that you are free to invest all your money. Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289135f42bf8602686098991399ef023", "text": "When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones. If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider. That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones. They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to. But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested. The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b9a659ee68b3baea3494b9c715fafe6", "text": "\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b06e7307088dc7210864a5d44d88371", "text": "I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a688bd683b9434c0fed89aadcbbb9cb3", "text": "\"The purpose of the emergency fund is to enable you to pay for unplanned necessary expenses without going into debt. You know that cars don't last forever and eventually need to be replaced. Ideally, you would have a \"\"car replacement fund\"\" which you contribute to a little every month. (Essentially, it is a car payment to yourself.) Then when it comes time to get a replacement car, you have money set aside for this purpose and know exactly how much you can spend. However, in your case it seems that you don't have enough money in your car replacement fund for the car that you want. There are a few different causes that might have led to this situation: Due to unforeseen circumstances, you need a replacement car before you thought you would need it. You find that your planning was not quite right, and you weren't saving as much as you need. You are trying to buy a more expensive car than you need. If a replacement car is a necessity, two of these are emergencies, one is not. If you don't have enough cash set aside for a car, it is certainly better to spend your emergency fund and pay cash than to borrow money to buy the car. Only you can decide if the car you are looking at is appropriate for you, or if you should be looking at a less expensive car. After you purchase the car, build your emergency fund back up first, then start saving for your next car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4cea859a9848373c95e16a60f3aeadd", "text": "Why can't you have both? If you do have both credit and an emergency fund, and an emergency occurs, you can draw from the line of credit first. Having debt + cash is a much more stable situation than having neither, because then you have the option to use the cash to pay off the debt, or use the cash to pay other expenses. If you just have cash, when you spend it it's gone and there's no guarantee anyone is going to lend you any money at that point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f6ece7c89aeb6cab3a15d9aec09963b", "text": "Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough. Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true. Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay. Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source. Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement. In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs. If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal. A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs. See for example here. This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month. France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car. As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity. This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "151ec6d3e24b890cc9732e88649dfd6e", "text": "\"What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my \"\"emergency fund\"\", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of \"\"very liquid\"\" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e32fa977d20156bc3c089162770bd973", "text": "\"It's a spin on the phrase \"\"making your money work for you\"\". before sending your money off to do the heavy lifting, you'll want to have an emergency savings account of about six months of living expenses stored in cash. Basically, he is saying before you start to invest make sure you have sufficient emergency savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e8d85d78ecbeb8f53dec0110eed30fe", "text": "There's something very important no one else has mentioned... times when the stock market falls dramatically are often the times when you're most likely to lose your job, and when it's hardest to get loans. So if you ever do need your emergency fund, it will more than likely be related to a dip in the stock market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1344b296a3240da9185bf0b8287c5358", "text": "The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund. Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0364ea9ed924d97f3b4e2d2d2f20006", "text": "This is a somewhat subjective question, but if you are following a particular personal finance methodology, just do whatever they recommend. For example, I believe that Dave Ramsey's program calls for the emergency fund to be in a different account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8965f489cca99abdd4001c2050f1b79a", "text": "I know this is heresy but if you have funds for significantly more than 6 months of expenses (let's say 12 months), how risky would it be to put it all into stock index funds? Quite risky as if you do need to dip into it, how fast could you get the cash? Also, do you realize the tax implications when you do sell the shares should you have an emergency? In the worst-case scenario, let's say you have a financial emergency at the same time the stock market crashes and loses half its value. You could still liquidate the rest and have sufficient funds for 6 months. Am I underestimating the risks of this strategy? That's not worst case scenario though. Worst case scenario would be another 9/11 where the markets are closed for nearly a week and you need the money but can't get the funds converted to cash in the bank that you can use. This is in addition to the potential wait for a settlement in the case of using ETFs if you choose to go that way. In the case of money market funds, CDs and other near cash equivalents these can be accessed relatively easily which is part of the point. A staggered approach where some cash is kept in house, some in accounts that can easily accessed and some in other investments may make sense though the breakdown would differ depending on how much risk people are willing to take. If it truly is an emergency fund then the odds of needing it should be very slim, so why live with near zero return on that money? Something to consider is what is called an emergency here? For some people a sudden $1,000 bill to fix their car that just broke down is an emergency. For others, there could be emergency trips to visit family that may have gotten into accidents or gotten a diagnosis that they may pass away soon. Consider what do you want to call an emergency here as chances are you may not be considering all that people would think is an emergency. There is the question of what other sources of money do you have to cover should issues arise.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "15a8d776bf4427047a8a551633407a1b", "text": "\"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them. In fact, the majority of \"\"wall street\"\" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general. There are \"\"for fee\"\" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdf7ac62637421a1a1321ae8cdd080a4", "text": "Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1fa75ab8a23b7d77ea05b2bba4111506", "text": "\"You want a fee-only advisor. He charges like an architect or plumber: by the hour or some other \"\"flat fee\"\". That is his only compensation. He is not paid on commission at all. He is not affiliated with any financial services company of any kind. His office is Starbucks. He does not have a well lit office like the commission broker down the street. He does not want you to hand him your money - it stays in the brokerage account of your choice (within reason - some brokerage accounts are terrible and he'll tell you to get out of those). He never asks for the password to your brokerage account. Edit: The UK recently outlawed commission brokers. These guys were competitive \"\"sales types\"\" who thrive on commissions, and probably went into other sales jobs. So right now, everyone is clamoring for the few proper financial advisors available. High demand is making them expensive. It may not be cost-effective to hire an advisor; you may need to learn it yourself. It's not that hard. Ever hear of a plumber who works totally for free, and makes his money selling you wildly overpriced pipe? That's what regular \"\"financial advisors\"\" are. They sell products that are deliberately made unnecessarily complex. The purpose is first, to conceal sales commissions and high internal fees; and second to confuse you, so the financial world feels so daunting that you feel like you need their help just to navigate it. They're trying to fry your brain so you'l just give up and trust them. Products like whole life and variable annuities are only the poster children for how awful all of their financial products are. These products exist to fleece the consumer without quite breaking the law. Of course, everyone goes to see them because they have well lit offices in every town, and they're free and easy to deal with. Don't feel like you need to know everything about finance to invest. You don't need to understand every complex financial product that the brokerage houses bave dreamed up: they are designed to conceal and confuse, as I discuss above, and you don't want them. The core of it is fairly simple, and that's all you really need to know. Look at any smaller university and how they manage their endowments. If whole life, annuities and those complex financial \"\"products\"\" actually worked, university endowments would be full of them. But they're not! Endowments are generally made of investments you can understand. Partly because university boards are made of investment bankers who invented those products, and know what a ripoff they are. Some people refuse to learn anything. They are done with college and refuse to learn anything more. I hope that's not you. Because you should learn the workings of everything you're investing in. If you don't understand it, don't buy itl And a fee-only financial advisor won't ask you to. 1000 well-heeled, well-advised university endowments seek the most successful products on the market... And end up choosing products you can understand. That's good news for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1669fbab3ed90f4ba241a6bf435ff3a1", "text": "Sir, although I am quiet inexperienced speaking in this subject but being an undergraduate in financial engineering, I feel the title is suited very well since providing unbiased financial advice is the last and greatest thing that any financial adviser would ever do....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "304b9221d2ada7e5d6cf98f57419d1a4", "text": "You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d983d0990780aed6e30220bbab12b25", "text": "The way this works, as I understand it, is that financial advisers come in two kinds. Some are free to recommend you any financial products they think fit, but many are restricted in what they can recommend. Most advisers who work for finance companies are the second kind, and will only offer you products that their company sells. I believe they should tell you up front if they are the second kind. They should certainly tell you that if you ask. So in essence, your Scotiabank advisor is not necessarily making bad decisions for you - but they are restricted in what they will offer, and will not tell you if there is a better product for you that Scotiabank doesn't sell. In most cases, 'management fees' means something you pay to the actual managers of the fund you buy, not to the person who sells you the fund. You can compare the funds you are invested in yourself, both for performance and for the fees charged. Making frequent unnecessary changes of investment is another way that an advisor can milk you for money, but that is not necessarily restricted to bank-employed advisors. if you think that is happening to you, ask question, and change advisors if you are not happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea", "text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b806671cb1b52fd455e729cbb9e107", "text": "The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c89e9a5530170e982dfbeca5e1dd434", "text": "\"Fred is correct ... MOST financial advisors (but not all) are paid either for managing your assets or for selling you financial products. But success at anything, especially building wealth, is all about PROCESS, not products. I applaud your desire to find a financial advisor to help you because this is not something that most people have the education, experience or capacity to do themselves (it is impossible to get the perspective you need to make the best choices). Start with a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER professional - they have an ethical duty to do what is in your best interests ahead of their own (the \"\"fiduciary standard\"\"). You might interview two or three. Work with the one who is transparent about how they are paid and whose process is focused on helping you achieve your goals ... not following any rule of thumb or standard boilerplate. Your goals are different. Your financial life is different. Find someone who can help YOU follow YOUR agenda ... not their own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39fac01405b61176cd3e961c7a2eb120", "text": "\"Legally ok? Sure. Friends frequently discuss financial matters, and share advice. This is quite far from taking money from them and managing it, where at some point you need to be licensed for such things. If you're concerned about giving bad advice, just stay generic. The best advice has no risk. If I offer a friend a stock tip, of course there's the chance the stock goes south, but when I tell a friend who asks about the difference between Mutual Funds and ETFs, and we discuss the expenses each might have, I'm still leaving the decision as to which ETF to him. When I offer the 'fortune cookie' soundbites like \"\"If you are going to make a large purchase, delay it a week for each $100 of value. e.g. if you really want a $1000 TV, sleep on it for a few months\"\" no one can mis-apply this. I like those two sites you mentioned, but the one-on-one is good for the friend and for you. You can always learn more, and teaching helps you hone your skills.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87da2357c61d0267338d13fbd7c6e88e", "text": "\"Genuine (nearly) passive income can be had from some kinds of investing. Index funds are an example of a mostly self-managing investment. Of course investment involves some risk (the income is essentially paying you for taking that risk) and returns are reasonable but proportional to the risk -- IE, not spectacular unless the risk is high. If someone is claiming they can get you better than market rate of return, look carefully at what they are getting out of it and what the risks are. Fees subtract directly from your gains, and if they claim there is no additional risk, they need to prove that. You are giving someone your money. Be very sure you are going to get it back. If it isn't self-evident where the income comes from, it's probably a scam. If someone is using the term \"\"auto-pilot\"\", it is almost certainly a scam. If they are talking about website advertising and the like, it is far from autopilot if you want to make any noticable amount of money (though you may make money for them).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf54036c6776fec58c6975a58b2792a0", "text": "A financial advisor is a service professional. It is his/her job to do things for you that you could do for yourself, but you're either too busy to do it yourself (and you want to pay somebody else), or you'd rather not. Just like some people hire tax preparers, or maids, or people to change their oil, or re-roof their houses. Me, I choose to self-manage. I get some advise from Fidelity and Vanguard. But we hired somebody this year to re-roof our house and someone else to paint it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e33025156ccff105618c180e01c176c4", "text": "They've asked you, so your advice is welcome. That's your main concern, really. I'd also ask them how much, and what kind of advice. Do they want you to point them to good websites? On what subjects? Or do they want more personal advice and have you to look over their bank accounts and credit card statements, provide accountability, etc.? Treat them the same way you'd want to be treated if you asked for help on something that you were weak on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b86e24022f172c2b6a6d0cd4b4287f16", "text": "In the case of an investment strategy, if you don't retain custodianship over your funds, or at least determine who is the custodian, then walk away. You should be able to get accurate account statements from a trustworthy third party at all times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f587ef6b4da5a2caa0612bf66b160", "text": "I think following the professional money managers is a strategy worth considering. The buys from your favorite investors can be taken as strong signals. But you should never buy any stock blindly just because someone else bought it. Be sure do your due diligence before the purchase. The most important question is not what they bought, but why they bought it and how much. To add/comment on Freiheit's points:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7375b487322935638688af71c2a9a918", "text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f1566f3bcced560b9b1cdda113c0d40", "text": "The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "95738b7725dea352d912355a70fde454", "text": "Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a487098eb5d373fc761b2f723dfdff16", "text": "The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be18dd25573348ca2dd5f1fd1b884d88", "text": "Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bde532eae5c6c8cbb1770a4bfd7c4d55", "text": "\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "880c472155f647b17b728aa8863c09a8", "text": "Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041", "text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761", "text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d917fd88122a0370b8a89e8598d25e42", "text": "Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135a2e56bf522c48f2db3566edca2a69", "text": "A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.", "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": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2", "text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"", "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": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979", "text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"", "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": "4d9f05f39288a85e40d0d2571f7e15c5", "text": "\"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413", "text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b7fd84cef86ec642912dd0ad4a815e3", "text": "\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd", "text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "50f5a406ae63d09915ea626bbcf6eaac", "text": "The FDIC is pretty confident about them being legit. http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp (type in Bank Of The Sierra in the name field and search on that) You got to realize how much money they will make if you use them per the agreement. Every credit card / debit transaction gets them some cash. Businesses get between 1 and 5% of each transaction even on debit cards. Then there is a flat fee the merchant pays for accepting the credit card between .25 and .50 per transaction. Even at 12 transactions a month, the bank is looking at making around $6/month. Probably more because who uses a debit card just 12 times a month. It would be convenient for most people to juse use it all the time. Does 4.09% APY beat $6/month? You would have to keep a balance of $2000 plus to cost more than you earn. And if you keep more than $2k in the account, they have other ways to make money off of you. I would also assume they make money on the bill pay and direct deposit side of things, but I can't speak for certain about that. Bottom line is this seems like a good deal to attract customers, they would rather make a bit less profit then BofA to grow their business. They are betting their offer restrictions will change your habits and make you more profitable to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9bc8164220c18ba77ee593c6382400f", "text": "\"I believe MrChrister's answer is correct: Since they're FDIC insured, they are \"\"legit.\"\" Second, on the seemingly too-good-to-be-true rate: They're basically making up the difference on other fees (not necessarily paid by you) in order to offer you the higher-than-market rate. I'd like to point out two things not mentioned about the current rate offer, though: The high 4.09% APY advertised is only on balances up to $25,000; anything over that threshold is at a lower 1.01% APY. The offer also states in the footnotes: \"\"Rates may change after the account is opened.\"\" You might want to see if they have a good history of paying higher than average interest rates. You wouldn't want to switch only to find out the promotional rate was a teaser that soon gets reduced.\"", "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": "63149c46d2348ca9f7ea75989331bfee", "text": "From what I Understand, people put up with BofA because it's convenient in that there are branches everywhere in the country. Not sure if it's worth it, but if you're a normal banking customer, your won't face any of those fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4162c5533d3365d1aae1ce002dad60", "text": "Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0529995b24384305ac69fd7a28a6cf01", "text": "I had a modest car loan with Chase. I always felt like they were trying to fuck me over. They charged for electronic payments, would mail the payment coupon (the bill) less than two weeks before it was due each month, the payment schedule seemed to wander, etc. I was constantly stressing that I was going to miss a payment and incur a large late fee. This was on just a small car loan. I've heard they've gotten better (electric payments don't cost extra anymore) but it definitely made me feel very adversarial with banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c7a46fe492c59213577f579bccc7310", "text": "Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32d1ce2d6b5eb89c3d4d17ff96505c4a", "text": "\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3440392865922705522359d6a305d0c9", "text": "I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f44923b11f478b4343fc8dcecd6bdd", "text": "Go to your local credit union and open an account there! Why do people put up with banks? Big banks are for business not for regular folks, they will nickel and dime you all the time, and that's the honest ones, the scum like WF will just trash you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da7ca13310fe4d4a7607b6123f0a1b8a", "text": "I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37c92235ba646978f24e7933ffa9da44", "text": "No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6062d1d56fd7a847048feadf670efed", "text": "I think part of the reason people overdraft is because the online banking app/website doesn't show a true indication of your account balance. I've had mine (at Bank of America) adjust to $30 less than it told me I had when I checked due to processing payments being altered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a861a9efd39b0ae336560628fd4300fa", "text": "Mango is legit, there are some other forums out there with some reviews and discussion about whether or not it's worth the effort of setting it up and following the rules to realize the maximum benefit. The main downside is that Mango is fee-heavy: ATM fees, monthly fees, etc. One person did a calculation that if you follow all the rules and minimize fees, your maximum benefit above what you can get at other online banks with enticing rewards or interest rates is about $250/yr. Is $250 worth the hassle of following the Mango rules? You'll have to decide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bb927370e4c9c826f2438fd12069a89", "text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1ad7031369090557f0e17e239c0db35", "text": "And this is why we calculate actual yield and not just coupons. Nobody pays par for high yield notes. If the company performs well, the price of your note goes up and you can realize a gain when is called or your sell it. High yield works exactly like equity, and in a lot of cases it's better because it spits out cash in the meantime. I'm not even allowed to call the interest I get on my HY notes as interest. All realized gain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdfc3e853580c00d5da19e51a2631af0", "text": "\"Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for \"\"first-time home buyer\"\" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K. Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage. It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cc596ab411b839e7fddc66f3efd63334", "text": "Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4790ea74aca7de852479ef515061a8c3", "text": "If you download the historical data from Yahoo, you will see two different close prices. The one labeled 'Close' is simply the price that was quoted on that particular day. The one labeled 'Adj Close' is the close price that has been adjusted for any splits and dividends that have occurred after that date. For example, if a stock splits 10:1 on a particular date, then the adjusted close for all dates prior to that split will have been divided by 10. If a dividend is paid, then all dates prior will have that amount subtracted from their adjusted quote. Using the adjusted close allows you to compare any two dates and see the true relative return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd44af0ba38fa7d68265e7bc6603f04d", "text": "According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2b5a994cca7939cf4143da8b2514a0", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6", "text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.", "title": "" }, { "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": "d3d42480931d9f5d13947a15a0739972", "text": "Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ee6ef014bea7ddd8fbdc6c5770d5a80", "text": "For implied volatility it is okey to use Black and scholes but what to do with the historical volatility which carry the effect of past prices as a predictor of future prices.And then precisely the conditional historical volatility.i suggest that you must go with the process like, for stock returns 1) first download stock prices into excel sheet 2) take the natural log of (P1/po) 3) calculate average of the sample 4) calculate square of (X-Xbar) 5) take square root of this and you will get the standard deviation of your required data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0f869c36cbaef461e171d52dc5b2204", "text": "What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5706f44f1804fb9fdef2c7144dcbfe14", "text": "Adjusting for a market change from day to day, the dividend should have no impact on you. Your X shares time $Y should be nearly identical right after that dividend hits the account. And within the 401(k) or IRA for that matter, the accounting doesn't matter most of the time. Outside a retirement account, you need to pay tax on the dividend, and add the newly purchased shares' cost to your cost basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77910cb1a35f144cf084c07e12dd9ba9", "text": "I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b", "text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e80cc5163e18d81954a1a7decbd86e89", "text": "\"In addition to the other answers it's also noteworthy that the stock exchanges themselves adjust the price quotes via their ex-div mechanism. All limit orders present in the book when the stock goes ex-div will be adjusted by the dividend. Which means you can't even get \"\"accidentally\"\" filled in the very unlikely case that everyone forgot to adjust their quotes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dda0fb223ab5a85f71808cc1cc96cd93", "text": "\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d304e33e18f5f22766283a4d16a7ca8b", "text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04870e2e53ff714d4ec85e6dec4a22ee", "text": "One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fa54cf62db12e34c6926ed17d54279e", "text": "\"Almost every online datasources provide historical prices on given company / index's performance; from this, you can easily calculate \"\"standard deviation\"\" by yourself. With that said, standard deviation presumes a fixed set of data. Most public corporations have data spanning multiple decades, during which a number of things have changed: For these reasons, I have doubts on simplistic measures, such as \"\"standard deviation\"\" measuring any reality on the underlying vehicle. Professional investors usually tend to more time-point data, such as P/E ratio.\"", "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": "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": "fc0fe46942d5a9dcdd3fcefed406a418", "text": "\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e651a251829a7dbecf27ec87e52537b0", "text": "Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates. Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower. You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie. If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e2be48d370930b6b5a2b1b9f265e806d", "text": "While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change. If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell. Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7a87386730386fa1673c55140cb20d0", "text": "Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt. Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ? I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade", "title": "" }, { "docid": "855d6bdeba3cb99fb8d00493d3a5549b", "text": "\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d31a275fbb717703bc4739ca6ad43aff", "text": "When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though. And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt. Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c074e41e3cb931ec2dfbfc915fdbe0e", "text": "\"The logic \"\"the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy\"\" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b016ad4e91e887d07872457741a50b2c", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc", "text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e18803ec32cf60fccd68cba2c500df8", "text": "\"I suspect this is a function of deregulated banks' desire to write and flip as many mortgages as possible. The best targets for this sales push were naturally those with the most education, who tended to have the best credit ratings and most secure jobs. The last time I bought a house, the mortgage salesman practically lit up when looking at my income and credit score, pushing me hard to borrow more. \"\"You could buy a lot more house than this!\"\" he said. \"\"You could buy apartments as an investment or for resale!\"\" I resisted temptation, thank heaven, but it's all too easy to see how millions of others didn't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28501cd5cb256a4222ed10711419d979", "text": "\"Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: \"\"What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!\"\", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years. From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0337a6c0871430605d756e40eb6d0e83", "text": "The government started the crisis and the banks concluded it. Barney Frank and the House Committee on Financial Services continually pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue new mortgages with the intent of increasing home ownership. The House set goals for mortgage issuances; thus Fannie and Freddie lowered the requirements for obtaining a new mortgage. Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages. Then, the banks realized they were holding a lot of risky mortgages on their books, so they found a way to spread the risk among other banks and investors. Through financial ingenuity to reduce risk and maximize return, they created a new investment (securitized the debt) where risky mortgages were bundled, the earnings tranched, and resold to investors. In this way, they transformed hard-to-sell subprime mortgages into salable AAA and AA debt. This depended on the fact that the risk of default on each mortgage was *independent* of the others. This scheme reduced risk and increased returns for banks and investors. However, the securitized mortgages contributed to a higher overall *system* risk. As long as there weren't mass defaults, everyone was better off. Well, clearly there were mass defaults on risky mortgages, which destroyed the securitization scheme and brought down the banks. The missing element in all this was a strong, competent regulatory body that looked out for the country's welfare. Everyone else was looking out for themselves: Barney Frank &amp; the House looked out for their voters' agenda to push home ownership. Home buyers were taking advantage of the favorable credit. The banks satisfied mortgage demand. The banks also figured out a way to sell risky mortgages to investors so more could be issued. However, no one looked out for the system-wide risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b0d59e3f864aab765fbc03b515de78f", "text": "\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a32103579ed3ba3b8902f81d055cf3ca", "text": "There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c01e8d7d9223450cb7fbed67e81d0f26", "text": "So am I to understand that giving AAA ratings to financial instruments backed by toxic mortgages had nothing to do with this problem? That selling mortgages with one hand and betting on those mortgages to fail with other is a reasonable business practice? No doubt the push to give more poor people government backed loans exacerbated the problem, but making that claim that that was the only problem seems about as valid as claiming that Goldman Sachs was responsible for everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80a726c21dbb5d848137fbfb2678c2d0", "text": "Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting. And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a89122e80abad502d2c82ced72836a", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_wp_178_2017.pdf) reduced by 100%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Economic activity may affect the development of credit through credit demand and credit supply channels. &gt; 3.1 Credit expansion and financial crises The empirical literature on the determinants of excessive credit expansion and financial instability has mostly analyzed the large build-ups of bank credit to the private non-financial sector since these data are available over a long time period. &gt; The positive correlation between economic activity and credit may result from the effect of economic activity on credit demand and credit supply but also from the effect of credit availability on economic activity. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kt8rs/imk_macroeconomic_factors_behind_financial/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~157450 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*: **credit**^#1 **income**^#2 **financial**^#3 **test**^#4 **household**^#5\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7d40e0940f7bca386ac3118b76bbdfbd", "text": "There are a few main economic reasons given why investors show a strong home bias: Interestingly, though if you ask investors about the future of their home country compared with other countries they will generally (though not always) significantly overestimate the future of their own country. It is difficult to definitively say what drives investors but this psychological home bias could be one of the larger factors. Edit in response to the bounty: Maybe this Vanguard article on their recommended international exposure is what you are looking for though they only briefly speculate about why people so consistently show a home bias in investing. The Wikipedia article mentioned above has some very good references and while there may be no complete answer with the certainty that you seek (as there are as many reasons as there are investors) a combination of the above list seems to capture much of what is going on across different countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f267f546a9aa7ca0178a43125fe42b50", "text": "\"It's likely that the main reason is the additional currency risk for non-USD investments. A wider diversification in general lowers risk, but that has to be balanced by the risk incurred when investing abroad. This implies that the key factor isn't so much the country of residence, but the currency of the listing. Euro funds can invest across the whole Euro zone. Things become more complex when you consider countries whose currency is less trusted and whose economy is less diversified. In those cases, the \"\"currency risk\"\" may be more due to the national currency, which justifies a more global investment strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306f3a6fe8fd8857a8f456e4e684ea13", "text": "\"To expand a bit on @MSalters's answer ... When I read your question title I assumed that by \"\"retirement funds\"\" you meant target-date funds that are close to their target dates (say, the 2015 target fund). When I saw that you were referring to all target-date funds, it occurred to me that examining how such funds modify their portfolios over time would actually help answer your question. If you look at a near-term target fund you can see that a smaller percent is invested internationally, the same way a smaller percent is invested in stocks. It's because of risk. Since it's more likely that you will need some of the money soon, and since you'll be cashing out said money in US Dollars, it's risky to have too much invested in foreign currencies. If you need money that's currently invested in a foreign currency and that currency happens to be doing poorly against USD at the moment, then you'll lose money simply because you need it now. This is the same rationale that goes into target-date funds' moving from stocks to bonds over time. Since the value of a stock portfolio has a lot more natural volatility than the value of a bond portfolio, if you're heavily invested in stocks when you need to withdraw money, there's a higher probability that you'll need to cash out just when stocks happen to be doing relatively poorly. Being invested more in bonds around when you'll need your money is less risky. Similarly, being more invested in US dollars than in foreign currencies around when you'll need your money is also less risky.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15a6082d1454328277850caf56f59175", "text": "You need growth in your retirement fund. Sad to say but the broad U.S. marks still has better growth perspective than the emerging markets. Look at China they are only at 6.7% growth for next year the same as this year. Russia's economy is shrinking. These are the other two super powers of 2015. The USA is still the best market to invest in historically and in the present. That's why the USA market tends to be overweight in most retirement portfolios. Now by only investing in the USA market do you miss out on trends internationally? Well you do a bit but not entirely. Many USA companies are highly international in regards to their growth. Here are some: So in short the USA market still seems to be the best growth market and you still get some international exposure. Also by investing in USA companies they sometimes are more ethical in their book keeping as opposed to some other markets. I don't think I'm the only one that is skeptical of the numbers China's government reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cb559b3a92b5f40f1f5c02c84656f0f", "text": "Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c483acb58363d9f4b5159678bd56c98e", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7541f07a95a913977a15cc8030734b8", "text": "\"I still don't understand this \"\"analysis.\"\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab49bc410881ee4bc8e5e5d965482653", "text": "\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79ecb26ea9c0236996186ea69aed8152", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1592b80f5b99de632e7d9825d8bde8e", "text": "Wow this is a bad article. This is a notional amount.... Eg. $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure. They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly. Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves). What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value. Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement. The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "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": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b", "text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9eee8e19e9f44b9229656342cdb3bcb6", "text": "\"Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question. At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability. This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are \"\"risky.\"\" Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way. But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline. Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the \"\"go with what you know.\"\" Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money \"\"at home\"\" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best? The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like. I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "704b6900ee772c3bc8f88707d1921036", "text": "I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a1962707304e58f79eb56f2e61454ad", "text": "Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827", "text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.", "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": "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": "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": "ee5ebb3166c476aae0783c775c317dc4", "text": "Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5a3d6571cd81096cd5d15ac5f33b0bb", "text": "\"No stock is risk-free. Some of the biggest companies in the country, that seemed incredibly stable and secure, have suffered severe downturns or gone out of business. Twenty or thirty years ago Kodak ruled the camera film market. But they didn't react quickly enough when digital cameras came along and today they're a shadow of their former self. Forty years ago IBM owned like 90% of the computer market -- many people used \"\"IBM\"\" as another word for computer. Sears used to dominate the retail department store market. Etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "299853db8bcf407fd6521d9673dc0cde", "text": "One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e", "text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c372d42ad4cbdb97645e1f11384d9124", "text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dda0fb223ab5a85f71808cc1cc96cd93", "text": "\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b68a08ae762146bd2022814306162a4a", "text": "\"Random question: are there any companies with \"\"physical,\"\" \"\"real,\"\" or \"\"in-kind\"\" dividends? For clarification, suppose a winery offers a security with a dividend of X bottles of wine deliverable annually for every Y amount of shares owned. Does such a company or practice exist?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25642445db62867fabedea609cea9f71", "text": "Long-term bonds -- any bonds, really -- can be risky for two main reasons: return on principal, or return of principal. The former is a problem if interest rates are low (which they are now in the US) because existing bonds will fall in price if interest rates rise. The second is a problem if the lender defaults: IOU nothing. No investment is riskless. Short-term bonds command a lower interest rate than long-term bonds (usually) because of their quicker maturity, but short-term bonds carry risk just like long-term bonds (though the interest rate risk is lower, sometimes quite a bit lower, than for long-term bonds).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67e4d82a9e0277becf00e9f95279d94", "text": "\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c", "text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032", "text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e699a0816100fcf20f7554246ab75094", "text": "Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.", "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": "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": "b5800f63f0c10a1e5baba7f2a38d43ef", "text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.", "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": "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": "9e0bf969138d5735f61a8ebd7bdc190b", "text": "\"You manage this account just as any other account. \"\"Petty cash\"\" refers to accounts where the cash money is intended for ad-hoc purchases, where you store an amount of cash in your drawer and take it out as needed. However, other than naming it \"\"petty cash\"\", there's nothing petty about it - it's an account just as any other. Many choose to just \"\"deduct\"\" the amount transferred to \"\"Petty Cash\"\" account and not manage it at all. Here the amount matters - some smaller amounts can fall under \"\"de minimis\"\" rules of the appropriate regulatory authority. Since you told nothing about where you are and what your business is - we can't tell you what the rules are in your case. If you track the usage of this account (and from your description it sounds like you are) - then the name \"\"Petty Cash\"\" is meaningless. It's an account just like any other. Since you have an employee dealing with this cash you should establish some internal audit procedures to ensure that there's no embezzlement and everything is accounted for. You will probably want to reconcile this account more often than others and check more thoroughly on what's going on with it. Since its a \"\"personal finance\"\" forum, I'm assuming you're a sole proprietor or a very small business, and SEC/SOX rules don't apply to you. If they do - you should have a licensed accountant (CPA or whatever public accountancy designation is regulated in your area) to help you with this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5892a6b97d54e8ad76db42787b8e4aa0", "text": "After talking to two CPAs it seems like managing it using an imprest system is the best idea. The base characteristic of an imprest system is that a fixed amount is reserved and later replenished as it runs low. This replenishment will come from another account source, e.g., petty cash will be replenished by cashing a cheque drawn on a bank account. Petty cash imprest system allows only the replenishment of the spend made. So, if you start the month with €100 in your petty cash float and spend €90 of that cash in the month, an amount of €90 will be then placed in your petty cash float to bring the balance of your petty cash float back to €100. The replenishment is credited to the primary cash account, usually a bank account (Dr - Petty Cash a/c, Cr - Bank a/c) and the debits will go to the respective expense accounts, based on the petty cash receipt dockets (Dr- Expense a/c, Cr - Petty Cash a/c). In a non imprest system where a fixed amount is issued every month, e.g., €100 every time cash is required, there is no incentive to ensure all money issued has been documented because when money is all spent a check for a fixed amount is issued. It is much more difficult to reconcile a non imprest system as you never know how much exactly should be in the float. In an imprest system the amount requested is documented, the documentation being the petty cash dockets and their associated receipts or invoices. So at all times you can check how much should be left in the petty cash float by deducting the amount spent from the opening petty cash float.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c1e5f7c7acf12b8ee23c673cd73e1487", "text": "How do I withdraw a large sum from my bank and give it to a money management firm? Either write a check to the Money Management firm or wire transfer the funds to the account mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "595edcd219da19b00009f7a9338b5f10", "text": "I'm not a finance professional by any means, but my understanding of cashier's checks is that they're more in favour of the person receiving. They're essentially guaranteeing that you have the money in your account to provide payment to the recipient. The advice I've always received is to treat cashier's checks and money orders as straight up cash, because that's essentially what they are. Hopefully someone else can come in with a better background, but I figured I'd pitch in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d209a5d245c3051134b821bb1c03f58c", "text": "1 Primary acct. Receive and distribute money to all other accts. For security do not permit debit cards to touch or payment pull from this account. All joint bills paid here. Attach a savings acct and credit card to this account for accruing taxes vacation money blah blah. This will facilitate managing instead of storing your funds. 2 Push distributions to one or two other individual accounts on whatever basis works. Cash groceries incidentals. Debit cards here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f6d0075e62e2c655b39f049dba249df", "text": "Structuring, as noted in another answer, involves breaking up cash transactions to avoid the required reporting limits. There are a couple of important things to note. And, the biggest caveat - there have been many cases of perfectly legitimate transactions that have fallen foul of the reporting requirements. One case springs to mind of a small business that routinely deposited the previous day's receipts as cash, and due to the size of the business, those deposits typically fell in the $9,000-$9,500 range. This business ended up going through a lot of headaches and barely survived. Some don't. A single batch of transactions, if it is only 2 or 3 parts and they are separated by reasonable intervals, is not likely in and of itself to be suspicious. However, any set of such transactions does run the risk of being flagged. In your case, you also run afoul of the Know Your Customer rules, because it's not even you depositing the cash - it's your friend. (Why can your friend not simply write you a check? What is your friend doing with $5k of cash at a time? How do you know he's not generating illegal income and using you to launder it for him?) Were I your bank, you can be very certain I'd be reporting these transactions. Just from this description, this seems questionable to me. IRS seizes millions from law-abiding businesses", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5827ececad5a61f0f7966888a3a9d00", "text": "\"You state \"\"Any info will be appreciated\"\", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID. You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K. The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious. Every year we were required to take a \"\"course\"\" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash). If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine. Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property? This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care. This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules. Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business. Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth. This article will explain why. Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)! If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him. You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf7b6129f6a8a9145f65dc426f9870e", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a18480745da1c3493c5bb28789f8041", "text": "\"A money order is basically a pre-paid check. The physical cash would probably get deposited into a \"\"master\"\" custodial bank account. Each money order has a different bank account number on the check where the funds are available as you have paid-for already. With the routing number as well, your traditional bank account will be able to process it as a deposit. For USPS money orders though, they can be cashed directly at their retail locations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8aa234932951e462e9c75416d5fab0", "text": "If you want to keep any consistent standard, you need to knuckle down and make those transaction entries. Honestly, this is a lot faster doing in bulk than doing day-by-day. But change how you account so it isn't annoying. I minimize my bookable transactions. For instance I deposit all income whole (for tracking) but stop tracking when the money is converted to cash or gift card money - I log adding $50 to a McDonalds gift card, but not the individual meals. I only use cash for the myriad small things I do not want to track - fast food, parking meters, etc. Anything big or that I want to track goes on a credit card. Then it's easy to reconcile credit cards to accounting system. (Cathy) Ryan's Law: if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af96ec7a1e4299588ed56d7a931f9717", "text": "That is definitely where my intuition went as well. I know we wouldn't meet certain requirements. I expect to have to jump through hoops to make it happen. I was mostly asking what hoops I will jump through, and if we will have to jump through fewer if we are not planning on handling other people's cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6ce529c96e20905f0789621c8fcfea", "text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f", "text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3", "text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e739a62468debe92fb55e23d02905ae", "text": "I would recommend pre-paid debit cards. Every quarter a fixed amount of money is loaded onto the card (or a new card is issued). This prevents any large-scale fraud from occurring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a", "text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c9835dfc7ec0b879d7bda361cc073ffa", "text": "\"Just to clarify, In wikipedia when it says It is defined as a market in which money is provided for periods longer than a year They are referring to the company which is asking for money. So for example the stock market provides money to the issuing company of an IPO, indefinitely. Meaning the company that just went public is provided with money for a period longer than a year. The definition in Investopedia basically says the same thing Wikipedia does it is just phrased slightly different and leaves out the \"\"for periods longer than a year\"\". For example Wikipedia uses the term \"\"business enterprises\"\" and \"\"governments\"\" while Investopedia uses the term private sector and public sector, in this context \"\"business enterprise\"\" is \"\"private sector\"\" and \"\"governments\"\" is \"\"public sector\"\" So in the sense of the length debt is issued yes, money market would be the opposite of a capital market but both markets still offer a place for governments and companies to raise money and both are classified as financial markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86002c2881dc80cdb1d691a332a2557e", "text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "26add6882c3b0f92d535fd869f8d55ee", "text": "\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f70c08e60d9f5b1375bca604d8599f", "text": "It is ALWAYS possible for a company's valuation in the market to be larger than the market it serves, and in fact it is not uncommon. There's valid argument that Uber would be a good example of this, with a market cap of more than $60 billion. Market cap is the total value of all shares outstanding. Keep in mind that what a company's shares trade for is less a reflection of its past (or, to some degree, even present) revenue activity and more of a speculative bet on what the company will do in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d1f2933881ff961545fe3768fdee86", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/finance-capital-shareholders-profit-market) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The term financialization is used all over the place, but it&amp;#039;s usually defined in a pretty circular way: financialization means &amp;quot;More finance,&amp;quot; more things controlled by finance. &gt; The role of finance in enforcing a certain kind of policy on the state, a certain kind of logic, a certain kind of organization - whether it&amp;#039;s the bond market or whoever else we imagine here - is even more clear-cut. &gt; To me, that&amp;#039;s a narrower, more specific, and maybe more fruitful way of thinking about financialization than just &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s more finance.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78t6so/the_disruptors_jacobin_magazine_via/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~235206 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*: **logic**^#1 **More**^#2 **finance**^#3 **way**^#4 **corporation**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66e0f00ac4ddfe238ea77d6e34291c88", "text": "Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f0cb1b299c8902d05de659c56af9285", "text": "\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \"\"banknote\"\" frequently called a \"\"share\"\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \"\"units\"\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52fa2db38c2736e1635ef757ef6cea8a", "text": "\"As someone that works in and with the ag and commodity markets, my understanding, is limited but I hope it helps. Aside from needing an infrastructure built to maintain the vast amounts of data, communication, pricing, banking information, having a closing time for our markets helps to ensure value and fair trade. Capitalism is centralized around creating a fair value for ventures to sell, where prospective buyers opt to purchase or invest. For example, where I attended university, there were many coffee shops close to campus, but only one stayed open all night, and as such had operational cost much higher than other shops, forcing them to charge more for a cup of coffee. While this example is crude, the idea is the same. By maintaining\"\"bank\"\" hours, product or strategies and developments meant to increase projected value are allowed to occur. I imagine that if the markets did not close, my coffee prices would skyrocket for an increased demand, that of which the supply chsin, and farmers, would struggle to meet. The same would be said of grain, salt, oils, etcetera.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26bc7f91b8e382b3c90f5c302e9fee61", "text": "\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \"\"closed\"\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "796e59cd78f34a9c70642f63ecf4b371", "text": "\"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \"\"lot\"\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \"\"open\"\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \"\"good faith deposit\"\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \"\"initial margin\"\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \"\"variation margin\"\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \"\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\"\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8accfe15c696a664fe3605ddf9390c52", "text": "Most likely economics then. What I'm looking to gain is an understanding of how the market works so that I may take that knowledge and use it to make investments, buy stocks, or possibly start a business. I have a very large amount of time between my studies for my classes and I think it would be a waste to not learn these tools (to give you a reason for my interest in this).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5871566697910ffc03fc7f607eb651c9", "text": "\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0390f2d24db9cccefd2200541646e809", "text": "\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \"\"enterprise value\"\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8192a8b59e7dc34d8ba75d13043d01f", "text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7df2f8533eb68741d6c2c8395f6fd4", "text": "The economic utility of markets results from price discovery (and the corresponding capital allocation.) Information which changes the material value of a business can come to light, be processed by sentient beings capable of rational thought, and conveyed to the market in the form of a price in an hour. That can't happen in a millisecond. And don't try to argue about liquidity, because HFT liquidity evaporates in milliseconds in adverse conditions (i.e. when liquidity matters.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55cc730f8d9d75acf4c420503348d4c4", "text": "HFT allows those with access to leverage sub-second propagation delays in pricing, which screws those without access to HFT systems. And since market-based capital gains are a ponzi scheme, this means that HFT essentially creates a money funnel from those without to those with. I honestly don't see how HFT benefits the market at all - it only benefits those with HFT systems to the detriment of those without. A transaction tax that makes HFT untenable simply removes HFT systems from the equation. The markets stay liquid; stocks stay fungible. The markets ran just fine for almost a century without HFT.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "809e241fbfea8c8199c5d2883dee43b6", "text": "\"Crowdfunding can be a legitimate means of funding very small startups. It is an innovative, but obviously risky, method of raising small amounts of money. As such it is now regulated by the SEC under \"\"Regulation Crowdfunding\"\" They have published guides for these types of business startups to help them with required disclosures and reporting requirements: https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/rccomplianceguide-051316.htm Here's the introduction to the relevant regulatory authority of the SEC: Under the Securities Act of 1933, the offer and sale of securities must be registered unless an exemption from registration is available. Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 added Securities Act Section 4(a)(6) that provides an exemption from registration for certain crowdfunding transactions.[2] In 2015, the Commission adopted Regulation Crowdfunding to implement the requirements of Title III.[3] Under the rules, eligible companies will be allowed to raise capital using Regulation Crowdfunding starting May 16, 2016. It is obviously a new form of investment but you should be able to get historical data on the SEC's real time Edgar reporting system once there is some history. This is a search for all Form C's filed as of 12/2/16\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f", "text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3451c2779bca4a3422a1edf0de832b52", "text": "At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2dd5540db63905132ff6419c895d1df", "text": "\"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent \"\"idea\"\" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor \"\"repairs\"\" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to \"\"open source crowd-sourced wisdom\"\" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost. Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive. This is about money. Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a839d22bdaca27f1edc720c15bf63782", "text": "They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space. In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9ee0e3065b8cff148fbeed83d6a7226", "text": "\"i realize the required rate will need to be below the expected growth rate. not really the issue. i'm also not looking for insight into how i model these two possible options, i'm really just interested in how people would think about producing a discount rate for the projects. \"\"but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views\"\" this was the ultimate question i was getting at. what would YOU use?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88cfe5b26b7ecbb169b03835ec119a19", "text": "TK didnt lose investor tens of billions of dollars. Also, for the past several years the whole market rewards growth over earnings, so that helped guys like Musk and Kalanick quite a lot and to a lessor degree, Bezos and Reddings. For all assets, investor profits come from either earnings or valuation growth and Kalanick provided quite a bit of the latter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972cada0712bdb15c5249e2fca6cd7a2", "text": "Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars. The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole. The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b39141e13117ae594047e1e04dc08ae2", "text": "What's a good proxy for the return of the market when utilizing CAPM for a WACC build up? I know I could rip data from Domadaran, but I'd like to calculate it for myself. Maybe S&amp;P 500 earnings yield plus the 10yr? Also don't like taking the round assumption of 7%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b92089939e283a69c66535a345f7ecee", "text": "Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there? Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset? The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best.", "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": "0722e905b79687713fca6967cb3942c8", "text": "Currently reading Peter Thiel's *Zero to One*, and he discusses just that. He knew the bubble was about to burst so he got as much investment as quickly as he could for Pay Pal. $100 million dollars raised the month before the bubble burst, according to him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a990852a5fbc94b6c23aa4c32112c7c2", "text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974ddb2aa065fb9d2f460b6cea10bad0", "text": "Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "15e97da772c632dd4122a70b3431aac5", "text": "SMSFs are generally prohibited from acquiring assets from related parties (whether it is purchased by the SMSF or contributed into the fund). There are some exceptions to the above rule for acquiring related party assets, including: • Listed securities (ie shares, units or bonds listed on an approved stock exchange, such as the ASX) acquired at market value. • Business real property (ie freehold or leasehold interests in real property used exclusively in one or more businesses) acquired at market value. • An in-house asset where the acquisition would not result in the level of the fund’s in-house assets exceeding 5%. • Units in a widely held unit trust, such as a retail ,managed fund. In-house asset rules An ‘in-house asset’ is generally defined as: • An investment by an SMSF in a related company or trust (ie a fund owns shares in a related company or units in a related trust). • An asset of an SMSF that is leased to a related party. • A loan made by an SMSF to a related company or trust. An investment, lease or loan that is an in-house asset is not prohibited, but is limited to 5% of the market value of the fund’s assets. The Answer: If your pre-owned Western Australian Rock Lobster fishery quota units are not included in the exceptions then you cannot transfer them into your SMSF.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b6457cfdb5e67f41d9270a82b34af5ee", "text": "If so how to do it. Ask CIBC to open the new RRSP account, and ask CIBC to contact GWL to tell GWL to move your money from the GWL account into the CIBC account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001308bb6898cc328653575ba51889b7", "text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc36a99ffea70f0b1e78475c3ad6fcb7", "text": "Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e43d052df5460eb9c1e6625c9febeee", "text": "Here are your options. While you remain an Australian citizen you cannot withdraw super just because you are residing overseas. You could renounce your citizenship - just make sure you have another one to fall back on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b96a22753213aa47f8e72a5c927db89c", "text": "\"How do I get my money from India to UAE account – what are the options, can I do bank transfer from my mom SB account to my international account. As you have transferred money directly to your Mothers account, getting the money back would need some paper work. Consult a CA and Bank in India, they should be able to help you. There are various limits under FEMA that would be applicable. As the amount is small a self declaration would also suffice. If yes how much do I loose in case of 20 lac due to currency conversion and commission (approximate) Not sure I understand this question, are you asking if you had converted X AED into Rs 20 lacs and now you have 20 lacs will you get back \"\"x\"\" AED or how much less? If you Buy and Sell on the same day, typically there is a spread of 3-5% depending on the currency pair. However rates would have move up or down since then and hence this cannot be answered. You would have to see what the rates are. b. can exchange with Friends in UAE and deposit the same in INR to their SB account in india. Stick to Banks or authorized remittance services [like Western Union / Money Gram / etc]. Any other method you are circumventing law. One is not authorized to convert currency outside the normal Banking Channel.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2beabeee5253deb288ef55349de184f8", "text": "\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \"\"approved investor\"\" to buy gilts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "792e994786ab815266aae52e7b5afef9", "text": "The $500 minimum is a policy of the ASX. As such any broker that offered a different policy would not be offering direct purchase of exchange traded shares. Note however that this policy applies only to the initial purchase. From the CMC FAQs: The ASX requires a minimum parcel of $500 to be traded if you don’t currently hold that particular security. Once you have $500 worth of an individual security, you can purchase any value of shares you like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd76b9c659a84acc192bdc6541303df9", "text": "the pots will be negligible, however this capital could be used better elsewhere if I was to withdraw them. You won't be able to withdraw the money. Notwithstanding the recent 'pension freedom' changes, money put into a pension is still inaccessible until age 55 at the very earliest, and probably later by the time you get there. You should have been Advised of this every time you enrolled into a scheme, although it may well have been buried in something you were given to read. The best you can do (and what I would recommend, although of course this post isn't Advice) is to transfer the pensions to a personal pension, for example a SIPP, wherein you will be able to control where the money is invested. Most SIPP providers will gladly help you with such transfers. Would it be beneficial to keep these smaller pots with their respected schemes The reason I suggest transferring is that leaving the funds in workplace schemes that are no longer being contributed to is a surefire way of finding yourself invested in poorly-performing neglected funds, earning money for no one beyond the scheme provider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c06d4979519343b62cea20210071cd7", "text": "It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d96ffa27caec8d874570b6eff6a9c68", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0", "text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea582ead73b55789e8dd68ef14643254", "text": "I don't believe you can do that. From the IRS: Finally, certain types of property are specifically excluded from Section 1031 treatment. Section 1031 does not apply to exchanges of: I highlighted the relevant items for emphasis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42419f06c71eda63a7955d18a0d1cd59", "text": "You've mostly got it figured out, but there are a couple of more points to consider: You'll be permanently losing a corresponding amount of your RRSP contribution room allowance, because the re-deposit of your funds into the new RRSP would count as a new contribution, the way you're proposing to things. For a small amount, it might not matter much, and if you're like a lot of people, you may have more accumulated RRSP room than you can reasonably use up. There may be complications if spousal contributions were made into your account during the previous three years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4abdf55b8e3aee2b6ddfaed7e3f5b5ee", "text": "Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fcd7fb040ef740738e216a493f8cccd", "text": "You have to file an application with PF Office. Normally your existing Organisation [which you just quit] helps you with the formalities. If not you would have to complete the same and submit it to the EPFO.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5efc6c902e24c8e389569c5dc1e4bf6e", "text": "What's the best strategy? Buy low and sell high. Now. A lot of people try to do this. A few are successful, but for the most part, people who try to time the market end up worse. A far more successful strategy is to save over your entire lifetime, put the money into a very low-cost market fund, and just let the average performance take you to retirement. Put another way, if you think that there is an obvious, no-fail, double-your-money-due-to-a-correction strategy, you're wrong. Otherwise everyone would do it. And someone who tells you that there is such a strategy almost surely will be trying to separate you from a good amount of your money. In the end, $80K isn't a life-altering, never-have-to-work-again amount of money. What I think you ought to do with it is: pay off any credit card debts you may have, pay a significant chunk of student loan or other personal loan debts you may have, make sure you have a decent emergency fund set aside, and then put the rest into diversified low-cost mutual funds. Think of it as a nice leg-up towards your retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10fdb001410920a523661929dc3f27ac", "text": "The best way to make money during a market correction is to be a financial services company handling transactions for people who think they can beat the market, and charging a percentage commission on each transaction, while keeping your own money somewhere nice and safe, stable and low-fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09e1175420f8c078193d1f53c0e2d9ca", "text": "\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adba6287db65fa68298869931d7b20e9", "text": "There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecdaccff108891484c211a4c85f658b2", "text": "If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adf3784d7c0d24870c3d6ccd2fed1685", "text": "There are a few ways to make money from a market correction:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ee0e1c4b0d8c09013cfe6e3b2e1a42d", "text": "\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"", "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": "f363ad8d933469cbe549fa2cf644c45d", "text": "Depends on how long you're willing to invest for. Broadly speaking, the best (by which I mean, more reliably repeatable) way to make money from market corrections is to accept them as a fact of life, and not sell in a panic when they happen, such that the money you already invested can ride back up again. Put another way, just invest your money in one or two broad, low cost index funds with dividends reinvested (maybe spreading your investment over the course of six months or so) and then let time do its work. Have you worked out how much you've missed out on by holding your money as cash all this time (I presume you've been saving up a while) instead of investing it as you went? I suspect that by waiting for your correction, you've already missed out on more than you're going to make from that correction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e", "text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52783402987434f0dd77f7695b1e7b03", "text": "\"I strongly suggest you read up the Option Greeks. You can be right about a stocks price movement and still not make money b/c other factors come into play from time or volatility. For a \"\"free\"\" option hedge you can look at collars. Buying puts and selling calls to offset the debit you pay for the transaction. Ex: AAPL is 115, You buy the 110 puts and sell the 120 calls. This gives you a collar around he current price. Your hedged below 110 and can still participate in upside move to 120. Also look into time value. Time decays exponentially in the last 30 days. If you are long this hurts you, if you are short(selling) this is good. Be sure to take this into account. Delta: relation of the option to the underlying stock move on a .01-1 scale, .50 is \"\"normal.\"\" Deep in the money options have higher deltas. It is possible other factors can offset this delta move. This is why people will lose money on earnings plays even though they are right. EX: Say you buy an AAPL call at 120, earnings comes out and the stock goes to 121. Even though you are \"\"in the money\"\" your contract may still have less value than what you paid because of VOLATILITY collapse. The market place knows earnings move a stock and that is factored into the price of the options expected volatility. As mentioned watch out for dividend dates. Always be aware of dividend dates and earnings dates and if your contract is going to cover one of these events. Interest rates have an effect as well but since the Fed has near 0 rates there is little impact at the present. Though this could certainly change if the fed starts raising rates. Research the Black Scholes Pricing model. Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game. As far as choosing strikes you can look at calculating the At THe money straddle to see if the options are \"\"cheap\"\" [stock Price * Implied Volatility (for 30, 60, 90 days Depending on your holding period)* Sq root of days to expiration] / 19 (which is sq root of days/yr) Add and subtract this number to the current stock price to give you an approximate 1 standard deviation of expected price movement. Keeping with our example. AAPL at 115, lets say your formula spits out a 6; therefore price range is expected to be 109 to 121 for the time period. Helpful for selling options, I would sell the 122 call or the 108 puts. Hope this helps. Start small and get a feel for things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ec6f6d74a9946f9c7b7f8f7132d8642", "text": "I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48145a232fa675d357bd2ef09fe54701", "text": "This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a02f833c1d38b9690a782247c15885f", "text": "\"Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the \"\"tubes\"\" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what. Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo \"\"soft launching\"\" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41408550c754bf06e2a72480dd970f12", "text": "Try https://sparkprofit.com/ You practice with real market prices, and it's free. Plus you can get real money pay outs if you do well. I earned 1 cent! hahaha I gave up trying to make money from it, but you get an idea of doing trades and how impossible it is to predict what the price will be. It has some tutorials and helpful things too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1362de224335f15575dc09b18898a99b", "text": "\"It's called paper trading because you do it on paper. So just do literally that for a little while. Write things down like \"\"buy 100 XYZ at $49.99 on 9/29.\"\" Then note the price each time you look it up, graph it each day, draw trendlines, calculate your ROI, etc. In pencil or ink, up to you. It'll give you good insights into what all that software is trying to do for you, and when it's trying to fool you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97d606e1bf5eedca0cde9f1fecfc9618", "text": "\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1", "text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e", "text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?", "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": "e0e1da3c3c3547ae5780093afe39e3fb", "text": "Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63a56308a95aeff53e47b12fe249d161", "text": "\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67cb69609988f2e18d54cebb5c343b92", "text": "\"Basically, your question boils down to this: Where and how do I squeeze the stock market so that within time period X, it will make me Y dollars. (Where I'm emotionally attached to the Y figure because I recently lost it, and X is \"\"as soon as possible\"\".) To make money on the stock market (in a quasi-guaranteed way), you have to adjust X and Y so that they are realistic. For instance, let X be twenty-five years, and Y be \"\"7% annual return\"\". Small values of X are risky, unless X is on the order of milliseconds and you have a computer program working for you. To mitigate some of the risk of short term trading, you have to treat trading seriously and study like mad: study the stock market in general, and not only that, but carefully research the companies whose stocks you are buying. Work actively to discover stocks which are under-valued relative to the performance of their corporation, and which might correct upward relative to the performance of similar stocks. Always have an exit strategy for every position and stick to it. Use instruments like \"\"trailing stops\"\": automatic tracking which follows a price in one direction, and then produces an order to close the position when the price reverses by a certain amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4c651b113f4bbcad8715b0faeacc2df", "text": "This is interesting. The application I'm putting together is more along the lines of automating the research process for a financial professional using a personal algorithm of his. The end goal is to provide him an alert to email when a new report is filed and if his criteria are met based on that report and past reports. Thanks anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58627b5021c3e0d0ffacd6ce9140b3d8", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ips-dc.org/report-corporate-tax-cuts-boost-ceo-pay-not-jobs/) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Job-cutting firms spent tax savings on buybacks, which inflated CEO pay. &gt; The telecommunications giant managed to get away with an effective tax rate of just 8.1 percent over the 2008-2015 period, while cutting more jobs than any other firm in our sample. &gt; Through extensive use of overseas tax havens, General Electric achieved a negative effective tax rate during the 2008-2015 period, meaning the firm got more back from Uncle Sam than it paid into federal coffers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x0arp/corporate_tax_cuts_boost_ceo_pay_not_jobs/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~201277 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*: **firm**^#1 **percent**^#2 **CEO**^#3 **tax**^#4 **more**^#5\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "29aa93d3c3af81a6236d2e1905ada5a1", "text": "This site has the best information I could find, other than a Bloomberg terminal: Quantumonline.com QUANTUMONLINE.COM SECURITY DESCRIPTION: SCANA Corp., 2009 Series A, 7.70% Enhanced Junior Subordinated Notes, issued in $25 denominations, redeemable at the issuer's option on or after 1/30/2015 at $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid interest, and maturing 1/30/2065 which may be extended to 1/30/2080. Interest distributions of 7.70% ($1.925) per annum are paid quarterly on 1/30, 4/30, 7/30 & 10/30 to holders of record on the record date which is the business day prior to the payment date (NOTE: the ex-dividend date is at least 2 business days prior to the record date). Distributions paid by these debt securities are interest and as such are NOT eligible for the preferential 15% to 20% tax rate on dividends and are also NOT eligible for the dividend received deduction for corporate holders. Units are expected to trade flat, which means accrued interest will be reflected in the trading price and the purchasers will not pay and the sellers will not receive any accrued and unpaid interest. The Notes are unsecured and subordinated obligations of the company and will rank equally with all existing and future unsecured and subordinated indebtedness of the company. See the IPO prospectus for further information on the debt securities by clicking on the ‘Link to IPO Prospectus’ provided below.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96", "text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135120000e9b25f90f97beb69b319bff", "text": "How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com.", "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": "4d6f7aaab66362044861af30f6dad102", "text": "I find the reg, at last. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Cornerstone+Strategic+Value+Fund&owner=exclude&action=getcompany Yes, its a common stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc", "text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.", "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": "daee5006ebc47e993c1da7252b2bdb37", "text": "Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a", "text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93fab222b68576800518b5b1a4e554ec", "text": "Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "864377bc38eace23fc5c87a8d9cd31bd", "text": "True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a53c5f4ce1cf486607686d161248249", "text": "\"The official source is the most recent Form 13F that Berkshire Hathaway, which is filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on a quarterly basis . You can find it through the SEC filing search engine, using BRKA as the ticker symbol. and then looking for the filings marked 13-FR or 13-FR/A (the \"\"/A\"\" indicates an amended filing). As you can see by looking at the 13-F filed for the quarter ending September 30 , the document isn't pretty or necessarily easy to read, hence the popularity of sites such as those that Chad linked to. It is, though, the truly official source from which websites tracking the Berkshire Hathaway portfolio derive their information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b891f946fa4bcd62c8d9379a78d169d9", "text": "I agree that a random page on the internet is not always a good source, but at the same time I will use Google or Yahoo Finance to look up US/EU equities, even though those sites are not authoritative and offer zero guarantees as to the accuracy of their data. In the same vein you could try a website devoted to warrants in your market. For example, I Googled toronto stock exchange warrants and the very first link took me to a site with all the information you mentioned. The authoritative source for the information would be the listing exchange, but I've spent five minutes on the TSX website and couldn't find even a fraction of the information about that warrant that I found on the non-authoritative site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d666c38057c10de0df25b0b819739a26", "text": "It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b42ee8b333f4eda0048aaa07d6c5a1c", "text": "Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5fc6449416d4cd15fa5c851bc0040ca0", "text": "If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "45c3cb28491d6b35f3219f442d3100a6", "text": "\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7847578cee6631c25a5d983b43d22e33", "text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1226b18f17ae68a16316ef098513605", "text": "Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39992fa71ba6c1794c6d2f65443b5d45", "text": "\"Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it \"\"fund currency\"\" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or \"\"hedge\"\" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e92639dfe3b96ba834caa1456ea2c9d2", "text": "Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?", "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": "a86ac339b5503e4547a79a0d3386e8dc", "text": "There are also currency hedged ETFs. These operate similarly to what gengren mentioned. For example, a currency hedged Japan equities ETF has an inherent short yen/usd position on it in addition to the equity position, so the effects of a falling yen are negated. Note that it will still be denominated in dollars, however. AED is pegged to the dollar though, isnt it? If your broker is charging you a crazy price maybe try again a different day, or get a new broker. http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b490195aee0c5351658b1edfd90ba3", "text": "If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28fed650e9e4cc59a4dba20e8648f303", "text": "Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3492cf4cc9b19031d374d516784f", "text": "You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df23c140202eec107b9a1e27a3e56147", "text": "This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading. Consider this event from 2010: Chart Source Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes. It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events. For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance. You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom. The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money. Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in? The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains. By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51876fb7fa8f2f1b1c5fc654650a5ef4", "text": "The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30152e0feec6c0a9cef953d3c3199026", "text": "The collapse of the US economic system is one of the many things I am preparing for. To answer the how, me personally I am doing some investing in gold and silver. However I am investing more in the tools, goods and gear that will help me be independent of the system around me. In short nothing will change for me if the US dollar goes belly up. A book I recommend is Possum Living (http://www.possumliving.net/). Other than that I am investing in trade goods such as liquor, cigarettes, medical supplies.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "25d8cc1c9a89bc05461a1f7d3745d1d6", "text": "For the united States forms must be submitted electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission , they also must be posted to company websites.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9d9cfa352ce07f9aa89d06d2a710373e", "text": "I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04", "text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c0ef579af3a41287177f58384446190", "text": "\"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it? Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are \"\"owned\"\" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever. All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9d5189c132f0a6e7e2c252016c06ba4", "text": "You could try asking Merrill Lynch, (general inquiries) :- http://www.ml.com/index.asp?id=7695_114042 So far I only found a few graphics :- http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/merrill_lynch_and_company/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/17/us-merrilllynch-results-idUSWNAS674520080117 http://www.stocktradingtogo.com/2008/09/15/merrill-lynch-saved-by-bank-of-america-buyout/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7d69cf99658362327bc6de5f7648fe1", "text": "The big websites, Yahoo and the like, only give the 10 biggest positions of any fund. Download the annual report of the fund, go to page 18, you will find the positions on the 31st of December. However the actual positions could be different. The same applies to all funds. You need the annual report.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa95e1979b11c80f337daceb60d0ca40", "text": "They have been changing over Immelts tenor. Didn't know he was stepping down though. Share buybacks can be for a variety of reasons. They feel stock price is undervalued, they want to support their current shareholders, debt is cheap so they can change their wacc, they prefer to return capital in a way that does not increase expected dividends in the future (something about dividends being sticky, and the a cut in dividends Make it look like company is doing bad), etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab52113ec7e01f75d7dbf10acd3beb4c", "text": "\"I'm searching for a master's thesis topic in equity investment or portfolio management and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what are the hot \"\"trends\"\" going on right now on the market? Any new phenomenons (like the rise of blockchain, etf... but more relate to the equity side) or debates ( the use of the traditional techniques such as Beta to calculate WACC for example ...) ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "1fe450796d9b1ff9b3f8b3ef7be554ee", "text": "\"I only follow the news of stocks I already own. I use the GlobeInvest Watchlist http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/my-watchlist/ each Friday night. In the drop-down views choose ALL NEWS I believe that there is a strong \"\"grass is greaner ..\"\" effect from always looking at what other stock are doing - leading to switching just before your first stock takes off. It is only when I sell some position that I go looking at other possibilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61de25b75f779fd3addc7f1515b344a4", "text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"", "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": "5a471ff2224383dc5a4b1d140d6501ee", "text": "The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04a2a79a70e0db2bef7ab9d57b6563bb", "text": "\"When you look at those results you'll see that it lists the actual market cap for the stocks. The ones on the biggest price move are usually close the the $1B capitalization cut-off that they use. (The don't report anything with less than $1B in capitalization on these lists.) The ones on the biggest market cap are much larger companies. So, the answer is that a 40% change in price on a company that has $1B capitalization will be a $400M change in market cap. A 4% change on a company with $100B capitalization will be a $4B change in market cap. The one that moved 40% will make the \"\"price\"\" list but not the market cap list and vice versa.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b428341dfada0d177ccdf968903c4f66", "text": "\"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\"", "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": "0a5caacca9c03cc06f281e38db8dad98", "text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3e18121abbfcdb6208a23de1e3a8776", "text": "Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a839d22bdaca27f1edc720c15bf63782", "text": "They return capital to investors every year to keep the fund size smaller, since there are a set number of money-making opportunities in the space. In other words, if they will make $1 billion per year regardless of invested capital, why not lever up a few times so you don't have to put as much in?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1131fb9f35fb03331ee946336e74694", "text": "\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\"", "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": "6ac3519ec4e4ad117851fa273152d4b3", "text": "\"It may be margin loans or credit lines given to brokerages. I have no idea what a loan book is though so don't I don't really know. Also no one \"\"plays\"\" in equity markets with borrowed money unless they know for sure what they are doing or they have collateral as in the case of margin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a391300cbd24b967851a40af75af143", "text": "\"Institutions may be buying large quantities of the stock and would want the price to go up after they are done buying all that they have to buy. If the price jumps before they finish buying then they may not make as great a deal as they would otherwise. Consider buying tens of thousands of shares of a company and then how does one promote that? Also, what kind of PR system should those investment companies have to disclose whether or not they have holdings in these companies. This is just some of the stuff you may be missing here. The \"\"Wall street analysts\"\" are the investment banks that want the companies to do business through them and thus it is a win/win relationship as the bank gets some fees for all the transactions done for the company while the company gets another cheerleader to try to play up the stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d60080d712fb6218076fb188ce7bf4ff", "text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a9f790989de9ec219c609fab50fc98a", "text": "Think of options as insurance. An insurance company makes money by selling the policies at a rate slightly higher than the average payout. Most options expire worthless. This is because most options are purchased by hedge funds. To 'hedge' means taking out insurance in case your position goes against you. So the sellers of options obtain a price that covers their (averaged) losses plus provides them with a profit for their trouble. An option has an amount that it declines in value each day (called theta). At the expiration date the option is worth zero (if it is out-of-the-money). So it is option writers that, typically, make money in the options market (as they are the sellers of insurance). If they didn't make money selling options they would not sell them. For example, the February call option on SPY strike 200 traded at 8.81 on 12/30. Since then it has crumbled in value to 0.14. The option writer currently stands to make a huge profit. So, just as with insurance, you (generally) never make money by buying insurance. But the sellers of insurance tend to make money as do the writers of options. Edit: Theta @ Investopedia", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5b065cb05a89d4e4f2b3b525e02327", "text": "\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"", "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": "3862e880f4ef2433c90221a639b0914e", "text": "The brokerage executes the transactions you tell them to make on your behalf. Other than acting as your agent for those, and maintaining your account, and charging a fee for the service, they have no involvement -- they do not attempt to predict optimal anything, or hold any assets themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1c310dd0d067d351747c3cdf07f7ded", "text": "\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a212b7e101d08456f62747b65e3c5a", "text": "The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value. Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend.", "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": "4ce1510db724098278202fb69a59c5a2", "text": "people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9", "text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b20ae0b7a53427e84f1435189b93ec3", "text": "Nobody is going to buy a stock without returns. However, returns are dividends + capital gains. So long as there is enough of the latter it doesn't matter if there is none of the former. Consider: Berkshire Hathaway--Warren Buffet's company. It has never paid dividends. It just keeps going up because Warren Buffet makes the money grow. I would expect the price to crash if it ever paid dividends--that would be an indication that Warren Buffet couldn't find anything good to do with the money and thus an indication that the growth was going to stop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "764624b0e84789c70bc3f1b715a280c3", "text": "Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment. Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders.", "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": "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": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191", "text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252", "text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69923fb1d6e6e062c5b30216a5600c26", "text": "Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "18371125025cdff3789257454829bd7f", "text": "There's not usually a point to issuing new stock as a dividend, because if you issue new stock, it dilutes the existing shareholders by the exact same amount as the dividend: so now they have a few more shares, great, but they're worth the exact same amount. (This assumes that all stockholders are equal. If there are multiple share classes, or people whose rights to a stock are tied to the stock price in some manner - options, warrants, or something - then a properly structured stock dividend could serve to enrich one set of shareholders and other rights-holders at the expense of another. But this is usually illegal.) If this sort of dividends are popular in China, I suspect it is due to some freaky regulatory or tax-related circumstances which are not present in the United States markets. China is kind of notorious for having unusual capital controls, limitations on the exchange of currency, and markets which are not very transparent.", "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": "684ffa8fa0acf0bc94ef340c7b1a78f2", "text": "I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7", "text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a1da1decc09e1158d46e7961ff60b4c", "text": "For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months. Awesome. You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns. The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129. Yet no dividend was paid. However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul. Many people simply hold stocks. Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth. Why to people buy stocks? For profit. Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53da041e5b8c1a6f7148e4d5b1358ea5", "text": "It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal) There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price. So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life.", "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": "30efae6efc1fb61ee20dfa28f371a625", "text": "A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company. The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock.", "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": "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": "d7bb1920277a6e3077f9af827c5ce15d", "text": "One explanation is that movie patrons are considering their total willingness to pay for the movie experience so that if the ticket price plus the market price of popcorn is less than their willingness to pay (WTP), the theater has an opportunity to extract more consumer surplus by charging higher than market prices for the popcorn (that is, price discrimination). There is a working paper on the subject by Gill and Hartmann (2008), the abstract of which reads: Prices for goods such as blades for razors, ink for printers and concessions at movies are often set well above cost. Theory has shown that this could yield a profitable price discrimination strategy often termed “metering.” The idea is that a customer’s intensity of demand for aftermarket goods (e.g. the concessions) provides a meter of how much the customer is willing to pay for the primary good (e.g. admission). If this correlation in tastes for the two goods is positive, a high price on the aftermarket good allows firms to extract a greater total price (admissions plus concessions) from higher type customers. This paper develops a simple aggregate model of discrete-continuous demand to motivate how this correlation can be tested using simple regression techniques and readily available firm data. Model simulations illustrate that the regressions can be used to predict whether aftermarket prices should be above, below or equal to their marginal cost. We then apply the approach to box-office and concession data from a chain of Spanish theaters and find that high priced concessions do extract more surplus from customers with a greater willingness to pay for the admission ticket. Locay and Rodriquez (1992) make a similar argument in a JPE article. They essentially argue that purchases of things like movie tickets are made by groups; once individuals are constrained by the group's choice, the firm has additional market power: We present models in which price discrimination in the context of a two-part price can occur in some competitive markets. Purchases take place in groups, which choose which firms to patronize. While firms are perfectly competitive with respect to groups, they have some market power over individual consumers, who are constrained by their groups' choices. We find that firms will charge an entry fee that is below marginal cost, and the second part of the price is marked up above marginal cost. The markup not only is positive but increases with the quality of the product. The quote you are looking for is similar, and again attributes the discrepancy to price discrimination. From the Armchair Economist (p. 159): The purpose of expensive popcorn is not to extract a lot of money from customers. That purpose would be better served by cheap popcorn and expensive movie tickets. Instead, the purpose of expensive popcorn is to extract different sums from different customers. Popcorn lovers, who have more fun at the movies, pay more for their additional pleasure. That is, some people like popcorn more than others. The latter idea is that the movie experience for popcorn lovers is worth more than the sum of its parts: that a movie ticket + popcorn is worth more than either of them separately for some people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b575d8fb24b84aca6dfd02fb8cbd46", "text": "\"A multiplex is a concession stand which happens to show movies in order to lure you into range of the smell of their popcorn. It has nothing to do with movie theater monopolies. As it was explained to me by my manager, back when I worked in a movie theater in a small Midwestern chain, for every movie, the studios take some percentage cut of gross ticket sales, varying from movie to movie. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999 was the first film for which the studio demanded 90% of gross ticket price — continuing a long-standing trend of raising the take which possibly began with the original first Star Wars movie. The other studios quickly followed suit and raised their take to 90%, especially for the big blockbusters — the textbook term is \"\"oligopoly pricing\"\" — and since then the percentage has inched ever closer to 100%. I forget exactly what it was on the second Matrix movie or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, both of which premiered while I was at the theater, but the number that sticks in my head is 94%. Obviously the studios can't directly capture any revenue from the sale of popcorn — unlike the movie, it's not their product — so every time they raise their take, the theater compensates for lost revenue by raising the price of popcorn. This trend hasn't reversed with 3D and IMAX and all the new technologies coming down the pike. The only reason they're attractive to the theaters is that the theater can charge $15 a ticket rather than $10. Even on a small percentage share, that's a 50% jump in revenue, and covers the not insignificant cost of the projection equipment. 3D is also currently getting more butts in seats than 2D was, leading to somewhat more concessions sales — going to the movies is an outing and an event again — though that's tapering off as it becomes less and less of a novelty. The ticket prices aren't coming down, though. Moral of the story: like razors or printers, theaters lose a ton of money to show you movies due to studio oligopoly pricing, and make it up on popcorn.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1125a00e20fcce7a54f20f4a30e98c35", "text": "\"To add to Jason's answer; a further mechanism is that of monopoly rents which you mention in your question. Movie theatres are often in shopping complexes (which themselves may offer a particular cinema exclusivity), or physically remote from each other, making price comparison more difficult. Different companies may not offer the same movies (similar to the way phone companies offer difficult-to-compare contract pricing). Once you've paid for your movie ticket, if you're suddenly thirsty or peckish, the theatre is the only place selling snacks. Many theatres (including film theatres) discourage (or refuse) patrons from consuming products purchased elsewhere on site. A sense of \"\"capture\"\" is reinforced with ticket collection at the entrance or some form of barrier (inside vs outside the cordon). A theatre can thus capture their patrons and then leverage that access in order to discriminate amongst the higher-paying consumers mentioned by Jason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac6fb82079eb594958328de09f62c77", "text": "Movie theater popcorn concessions are not really a competitive market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "615805aad595c950ff380c27d30f25b0", "text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f67d16b648ae2dcaddcbc3ecf9201539", "text": "I think this question has more to do with the business model of cinema. If I remember correctly. Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the studios. Something like the newer a movie is the greater percentage goes back to the movie studios and the older a movie is the greater percentage of ticket price goes to the cinema. So high priced popcorn and candy is often the only place where the individual theaters make any money. This may not be true for every movie but I believe it was the case for films like James Cameron's Avatar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa6ea3cedd16816577a2685b74d5c499", "text": "\"It's called extracting consumer surplus. Basically I have a bunch of movie goers (who have paid a lot for their tickets). Some of them don't like popcorn, and some do. Of the people in the latter group, there are some who are willing to pay a lot for it. That's partly because I have a select group (rich movie goers) and partly because some of these people would be willing to pay more for popcorn with a movie than without. If I were just selling \"\"popcorn,\"\" I'd have to charge a competitive price. But I'm really selling movies, which have more than covered my costs (rent, heat, etc.) So my costs of selling popcorn are less than that of a non-movie popcorn seller, and I don't really \"\"need\"\" to sell it. Ironically, it means that I can \"\"take my chances\"\" and sell a relatively small amount at a high price, thereby maximizing my UNIT profit. I don't mind having people NOT buy popcorn because I've already made my profit from them with the movie. From the point of view of the consumer, most consumers see popcorn as an \"\"afterthought.\"\" They will seldom think, \"\"I can buy popcorn $2.00 cheaper at Theater A than Theater B, and there's a 20 percent chance that I will want to buy popcorn, so Theater A is 40 cents ($2.00*.20) cheaper than Theater B.\"\" Instead, most make the decision to buy the popcorn after they've arrived at Theater B, because it as \"\"impulse item.\"\" And even if they do the \"\"40 cents\"\" calculation, Theater B might be selected because other factors (convenience, location, etc.) outweigh the 40 cent extra cost of popcorn (purchased \"\"sometimes\"\"). Put another way, the cost of popcorn is (usually) heavily discounted because of its \"\"remoteness\"\" to other facets of the decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35e20f6d7121dc7b7980251dbd5f8b8b", "text": "Theaters make pennies off the tickets if any money at all. Their profits come from the concession stand. If a theater priced their popcorn 50 cents less than a nearby competing theater the few if any customers that notice and seek those small savings would be far less than the losses due to charging less. They compete to get you there: providing better sound systems, seating, screens -- even taking a loss on tickets with special deals (like Tuesday bargains). Once inside profit is made by customers willing to pay the concession price premium, and sour patch kids for 15 cents more isn't going to be a deal breaker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a734a8af4ec3f4733f7c46d5e0dbfd2", "text": "In my experience, there's usually only one or two theatres within a small city. Maybe a few more in larger cities, but those are also larger areas. So there really isn't much competition. Sure, there are other places to get popcorn, but not movie theatre popcorn. It won't be lathered with 4000 calories worth of tasty butter and salt. Even if you make it at home that can be difficult to accomplish (and then you have to invest the time to make it). Besides, when I go to the movies, I don't go just to see a movie. If I just want to see a movie I can watch it at home. The junk food they sell is part of the experience. Even then, people do smuggle their own food into theatres all the time - but it's hard to smuggle in a bag of popcorn, and again, ordinary popcorn just isn't the same. So, I think the answer boils down to: it's expensive because people are willing to pay for it. And they're willing to pay for it because it's not really available elsewhere at any better price, and it's part of what they come for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2adcc92518c75e466df647a816251f3a", "text": "I'm kind of shocked that no formal behavioral modeling has been proposed as an explanation yet. One such model would be steep (hyperbolic, quasi-hyperbolic) discounting. Consumers would rather pay for popcorn later than for an expensive movie ticket now. For instance, consumers might when purchasing the ticket see a low value of popcorn and view the ticket price as the whole price because they do not predict purchasing popcorn. Then when entering the theater, the present value of popcorn is very high and they purchase it. There might therefore be a market for a commitment device (such as a popcornless theater) to make the appropriate decision ex-ante. Another commitment device that seems to be practiced is when individuals sneak their own popcorn into the theater. They may not actually want the popcorn, but by bringing their own they ensure they do not purchase the theater's.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3f5abd2acfb1265fc3d3a319711a1c4", "text": "You're looking at this too rationally. People can not resist eating junk food, especially when they have to sit for 2-3 hours to watch a movie. It's pure biology, not economics. People don't always act according to economic logic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4358e99254d6af312389bce07cbf9e75", "text": "I think a labor management issue explains the high cost of popcorn. Some weeks theaters are loaded with patrons and other weeks there are many fewer patrons. If popcorn were priced so that most patrons bought some the theater manager would have to have lots of employees to sell popcorn on the really busy days. The manager would have to cover the cost of wages on the slow days. A simple solution would be to adjust employee hours. To a certain extent I suspect this is done. If you look at the situation from the standpoint of the employee being sent home early or being told not to work tomorrow or, perhaps for the next week because the theater has a bunch of bombs, is not a good situation. A job in popcorn sales is probably not a high paying job so the employees may just quit and they may do this, not by giving notice, but rather by not showing up for a scheduled shift. The result of this is that managers determine the maximum number of employees they can hire if there theater has low drawing movies and they set the price of popcorn so that when the theater is filled this number of employees will not be overwhelmed by patron buying popcorn. At least not to the extent that the start of the movie has to be delayed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "472746e140cc4590c6522725079cff7d", "text": "John R. Lott, Jr. and Russell D. Roberts argue that popcorn in movie theaters has a price commensurate with its much higher cost. See also Lott's criticism of the Gil and Hartmann paper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c91f424b67f5a8969c651b558c8d18a", "text": "The cost of the popcorn is simply the hidden extension of the price the consumer pays for the movie ticket. Similar to the tips in the restaurant. And movie theaters do not compete by lowering the unit price. Instead to maintain the revenue per customer they try to offer more value - bigger screen, better sound, more comfortable seats, etc. That is why the price of the popcorn just like the price of the ticket itself does not go down in the competitive market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f437c961113c02977dce3155993b2a5c", "text": "In the theater, it's a person who can afford to buy expensive pop corn, cause he can buy the expensive movie ticket too... Also sitting at one place will make him feel hungry and buy something to eat... So maximum chances are that in the theater, that guy is your potential customer... Otherwise if the popcorn seller is somewhere outside the theater, they may charge you less. That's because of a different target audience... They would be targeting anyone who comes near the theater, who would not be willing to pay for expensive snacks or movie tickets... So very few customers around will be actually potential customers... To maximize their profits, they will keep the prices low and supply as much as they can... I know this is going against the normal Price Elasticity of Demand and Supply graph, but if the prices are low there will be high demand, so if the PED is more than 1, the supplier should supply as much as they can, to maximize profits... Its all based on the target audience... That's what I think should be the case of expensive popcorn in movie theaters...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "148b802970bd102897d3ec2d9f9fd92d", "text": "It's because true competition does not exist in the movie theater business. If you wanted to open up a competing theater whose competitive advantage was cheaper popcorn, you couldn't do it - the studios would never give you rights to screen popular new release movies. I know this because there are indie movie theaters that constantly struggle to acquire screening rights, because the Regals and AMCs of the world work hard to maintain their monopoly by having exclusive licensing deals with studios. Effectively, studios and a couple major theater chains have gotten together and agreed to fix the price of popcorn. So if you want cheaper popcorn, there are theaters where you'll find it - you just won't be watching Hollywood blockbuster new releases while you're eating it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa01bf9e3616fae31adabfd6b920145b", "text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b32243e607432b727df4fd2d87fdc4a2", "text": "I think because that high price and the fact that you anyway have a limited time to buy it before the movie starts maximizes their revenue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30bdd6c7622b38d322cb6dfd4202f5d4", "text": "While many answers correctly cite the effect of monopoly power.... there is a cost issue that no one has yet posted. I first recall seeing this cost effect in a managerial econ textbook, perhaps Ivan Png's. The theater must clean up the popcorn mess. The sales of popcorn elsewhere does not usually include the costs of disposal because that cost is not borne by the vendor. In a theater the cost of disposal -- which is a variable cost depending on the amount and type of foodstuff sold -- is borne by the vendor, who must pay employees to clean up between shows and at the end of the night. While most people are responsible with popcorn, there is a long tail of more and more costly messes left by the customer... and if the theater shirks the cost of cleaning the messes then rats with long tails will bite into future customer demand for tickets. Whether this cost effect is as large as the monopoly power effect and the synergy in willingness-to-pay between entertainment and refreshments is not clear. All of these effects may be in operation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a928b3d680b32ac10d860d1f71d28168", "text": "People have moods, that mean they don't have the same level of demand for luxuries every day. There might be some days when I'm feeling a bit poor, or feel like I need to save money, and the price I'm prepared to pay for a box of popcorn might be 50c. There might be other days, for example, the day after I receive my wages, when I feel rich and I don't care how much I spend on things. On such a day, the price I'm prepared to pay for a box of popcorn might be $10. Now, when a supermarket sells popcorn, they're not really able to price discriminate between these two groups. People come through their doors in all kinds of mood, so the profit-maximising price for popcorn is going to be somewhere in the middle. But the only people who go to a movie theatre are people who are already in the right mood to spend money on needless luxuries. So the very fact of being in a movie theatre means that a popcorn stall, whether affiliated to the theatre or not, is open only to the high-spending end of the market. They have already caught me when I'm in the mood to spend, so their profit-maximising price will be much higher than that of the supermarket.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a386d52e8820cd77a4acb592f43dbff4", "text": "A subsidy is a payment made by a group (usually the state) to individuals or corporations in order to shift the balance if the rational economic decision for the individual would be detrimental to the group as a whole otherwise. For example, if there are different quality kinds of crops that can be planted, for example a GM maize that brings in high yields but can only be processed to High Fructose Corn Syrup or a naturally bred corn that brings lower yields but tastes well enough for direct consumption, then if demand for both exceeds supply, the economic choice for the individual farmer is to plant the former. If the claims that HFCS contribute to obesity are founded, then it is in the public interest to produce less of it, and more alternative foods. Given that a market rather than a planned economy is desired, this cannot be achieved by decree, but rather money is used as an incentive. In the long term, this investment may very well pay off through reduced health care costs, so it is a rational economic decision from the state's point of view. In a world where all actors make decisions that are fully in their self interest, in principle subsidies would not be needed as consumers would demand healthy rather than cheap foods, and market mechanisms would provide these.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98be0b7da15a614bf57d1e37be2a0bd3", "text": "Generally I drink the free water that they provide. What I am saying is that if they lowered the price of the food and drinks, they might get more people in the door. When it costs $50+ to go to the movies for a family of three, that family tends to not go out much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8309ae39d299c5eb07bed04b95508f21", "text": "At the base of it all is the massive demand side subsidization of the health care industry primarily through Medicaid and Medicare. It's econ 101 that massive demand side subsidization drives prices up, but nobody wants to emphasize this point because too many pockets are being filled by the subsidization.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7faca27d33ae3ecfe15a85dd4e6d74b", "text": "\"McDonalds has some more expensive items, but their \"\"Dollar Menu\"\" is ridiculously popular and supposedly a huge draw. They've been trying to get rid of it for years because it's really hard to get anything decent for $1, but it's just too popular to cut. (According to the random articles I've read about it.) Other places don't really have anything like it. At McDonalds you can get two $1.xx cheeseburgers and fill up pretty good for the cost of going to a vending machine. While I very rarely go to any of these places, I do not agree that food is bad. Tastes are subjective and what you get used to eating tastes good to you. I remember that I used to absolutely love Taco Bell. Then - after a few years of not going there - I went there and found everything to be absolutely disgusting. But for a time, I thought it was the best stuff out there and there are a lot of people who like so called \"\"fast food\"\". I do think the overarching point is true; customer tastes are fluid. In the past 10-ish years, we've come to see a lot of \"\"gourmet\"\" burger places spreading like wildfire, for example. But as long as fast food is cheap, they will continue to fill the market for cheap food.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306972ad346f16ce6a4b32a1864311fb", "text": "&gt; It costs as much to project for one guy as for a packed house. I don't have specific knowledge about movie licensing, but I'd be VERY surprised if the number of tickets to a given showing didn't factor into the actual price paid to the rights holder. I mean, we live in a world where ASCAP charges bars for jukebox plays based on an estimate of how many people in the bar could hear the song.....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c95a3f96955c131806f5b56e19a89780", "text": "That is true. Since commodities are basically a futures contract, their actual price is not reflected in grocery stores. It is more of a supply and demand issue with your grocer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646958d497c01038e06c9619f0169def", "text": "In some country's even retail competitors set up a cartel like scheme and they pressure the fuck out of farmer and producers to drop prices, and obey to their promotion's. It's like they give them the volume to expand, and now that you are in a whole other level of production cut down prices or you'll be left with perishable goods with a limited shelf life, and no one to buy them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9e20507bb9e2bcaf472d84fa53290d5", "text": "It's not actually fighting the paradox of choice, it's lowering the costs of supply chain management. A regular supermarket, for example, has to source 50 different varieties of hot sauce from different manufacturers. Trader Joe's has a couple of varieties of their own sauce, and it's delivered in the same truck that delivers 99% of their food. People overlook this fact a lot - Trader Joes is a business that is vertically integrated, unlike any other supermarket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a683aa7dc1eeb98a212a8cfccf42858b", "text": "It's the combination of lower earning power and new technologies/trends. Like you said, why spend $100 on a sit down meal for two and cinema tickets, when you can spend 1/3 of that, get an online delivery and watch Netflix (and chill)?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f0b86fbb1c384cb4dbca3819c29e0a", "text": "\"This is known as \"\"Zone Pricing\"\" or \"\"Geographical Pricing\"\". http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/19/business/fi-calprice19 Such price variations may seem odd, but they are not unique to Anaheim. On any given day, in any major U.S. city, a single brand of gasoline will sell for a wide range of prices even when the cost to make and deliver the fuel is the same. The primary culprit is zone pricing, a secret and pervasive oil company strategy to boost profits by charging dealers different amounts for fuel based on traffic volume, station amenities, nearby household incomes, the strength of competitors and other factors. It's a controversial strategy, but the courts have thus far deemed it legal, and the Federal Trade Commission recently said the effect on consumers was ambiguous because some customers got hurt by higher prices while others benefited from lower ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_pricing Zone pricing, as practiced in the gasoline industry in the United States, is the pricing of gasoline based on a complex and secret weighting of factors, such as the number of competing stations, number of vehicles, average traffic flow, population density, and geographic characteristics. This can result in two branded gas stations only a few miles apart selling gasoline at a price differential of as much as $0.50 per gallon. But the short answer is \"\"because they can\"\". It's legal, provided that some people are paying less while others are paying more. Essentially the larger, richer audience is subsidizing the product for other areas. It's not terribly different than the way most drugs are priced in the world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73546c29cd824959056a3bf34e60ee69", "text": "I think they have a solid model, most theaters are empty most hours, so if this puts butts in seats, it's better than them going empty, and the theater mainly makes its money at the concession stand, so more people into the theater, more chances of making money off the concession. Only thing is that it might be too cheap. I enjoy going to the movies and I'd have paid upwards of $50 for this even if I'd only go two-five times a month. This is just far too cheap and would necessitate having a ridiculous amount of people signed up for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5147a957c33e626687cd2ef5cccf6fea", "text": "Don't discount regulatory issues (the mess that was CableCard, Tru2Way, tuning adapters, and the lack of AllVid) and monopolistic pressure (the cable companies liked receiving $5/box/month and don't want to give any of that income up, combined with fear of becoming the dumb pipe they really are so they applied as much pressure as possible against good regulations).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c24377f1738666a0983f2ecea7887a", "text": "The key is that you need to use your debit card to earn the higher interest rate. The bank can offer a higher interest rate on accounts connected with a debit card because: They earn additional income through debit card fees charged towards account holders, among other things. They offer the higher interest rate specifically to encourage people to use their debit cards. By offering a joint checking/savings account that requires you to use your debit card, the bank is assuming that you'll keep more money in your account than you would in a standard checking-only account. Your higher balance translates into more money the bank can loan out or invest, which usually leads to higher profit for them. Businesses pay fees to the bank to accept debit cards. These fees represent another source of profit for the bank. The more you use your debit card, the more the bank earns in fees, so the bank encourages you to use your debit card more frequently through incentives like a higher interest rate or waiving fees on your account if you use your card enough. Plus, since it's likely that an individual who maintains a fairly high balance in an account linked to a debit card is going to spend more (simply because they can spend more), banks will sometimes waive fees on the consumer side for balances over a certain amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931", "text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f144289b9cdf6ed2ae03ee3433f9895d", "text": "The SEC considers a day trade to be any trade that is opened and closed within the same trading day, and considers a day trader to be any trader that completes 4 or more day trades within 5 business days. If so they would label you day trader and in the US you are required to have at least $25K in your account. Maybe that's why they require you to add more money to your account? See more at Day trading restriction on US stocks and Wikipedia - Pattern day trader.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ffea634afb34ef8300a36b65480bcd8", "text": "\"I assume that whatever you're holding has lost a considerable amount of its value then? What sort of instrument are we talking about? If the margin call is 14k on something you borrowed against the 6900 you're a bit more leveraged than \"\"just\"\" another 100%. The trading company you're using should be able to tell you exactly what happens if you can't cover the margin call, but my hunch is that selling and taking the cash out ceased to be an option roughly at the time they issued the margin call. Being labelled as a day trader or not most likely did not have anything to do with that margin call - they're normally issued when one or more of your leveraged trades tank and you don't have enough money in the account to cover the shortfall. Not trying to sound patronising but the fact that you needed to ask this question suggests to me that you shouldn't have traded with borrowed money in the first place.\"", "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": "388670e63fb77129a0bf0dd35d0389df", "text": "The spread is two trades, one of which opens up some risk one of which limits/cancels the risk. There is nothing stopping you from selling part of the spread opening the door to the risk. You're required to have a margin account to open risky positions, even if the specific spread trade you're attempting to open has a risk limiting/cancelling counterpart.", "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": "915530153fe8420174831d635f1a06ce", "text": "It's about how volatile the instrument is. Brokers are concerned not about you but about potential lawsuits stemming from their perceived inadequate risk management - letting you trade extremely volatile stocks with high leverage. On top of that they run the risk of losing money in scenarios where a trader shorts a stock with all of the funds, the company rises 100% or more by the next day, in which case the trader owes money to the broker. If you look in detail you'll see that many of the companies with high margin requirements are extremely volatile pharmaceutical companies which depend heavily of FDA approvals.", "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": "b75e930b98cb6c9e4b9a575ff5982ce1", "text": "To Chris' comment, find out if the assignment commission is the same as the commission for an executed trade. If that does affect the profit, just let it expire. I've had spreads (buy a call, sell a higher strike call, same dates) so deep in the money, I just made sense to let both exercise at expiration. Don't panic if all legs ofthe trade don't show until Sunday or even Monday morning.", "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": "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": "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": "980cecc6af873f36e39625d078eb2647", "text": "You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6dd2d49fe387974d70a9f22ca9e5f4", "text": "\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563", "text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c7e517d976445ea8fea5aa4c0baa1f4", "text": "What bank, and is there restrictions on the trades? (i.e. they only go through once a week?) I do light medium term trading - maybe 5-10 trades per quarter - and would love to be able to cut out the fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3cd3ed069075fd5d61b92de73b50627", "text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"", "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": "412f6b73c849a8a37276bb09219eb959", "text": "You should watch Margin Call and follow Demi Moore's lead. Do you figure out what derivatives to buy or just calculate how much exposure the firm has and tell someone else? Can you potentially go to jail because of your job or is losing your job the worst that can happen?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "15f7e3886208561d239ceac550001b11", "text": "\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "e5596aaa914b3cd07b025cc9086d4f7a", "text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2b46f3a5cbcb74f41b3770d96231ea4", "text": "You could look up their old SEC filings before they were placed in conservatorship. Derive WACC from that. Comp to peer financials from the same timeframe; see how they compare. Assume some sort of size premium if you so desire. That might give you a picture of the business's cost of capital were it an independent entity. Since it's a GSE, you could make the case that its cost of capital is the rate on US treasury securities. In reality, it's current cost of capital is probably a mix of the two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f245448cef4bd0cb4b082095362b7a41", "text": "Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d3ff4d6b707032209f25ea78e8e020", "text": "Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.", "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": "8389f755320da15a711c925902a2d0fd", "text": "Not applicable. Or, at least totally unrealistic. Lots of assumptions about returns, no discussion of time frames, and no discussion of volatility. If it's a personal choice you wouldn't do it this way, plus there are other factors to consider. As far as the math of the question, you use a discount rate that allows you to account for alternatives, typically a RFR, but again, that doesn't apply to an individual quite in the same way since it's not a debt vs equity question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2bee9d464e259fa7b7b4558c1080986", "text": "I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcbaac0fc87e4020f573ccdc19177f29", "text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d", "text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f", "text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f214c7896e53e4033f83168ea3ed4c4", "text": "The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6f1061862d29930fecfddd11df34c74", "text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960", "text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "961b808e8f5aff1ccc271dcee4ea0080", "text": "This is basically a math problem. It depends on the pension benefits, the lump sum, and the chance that the company doesn't honor its pension plan. If you're willing to share the first 2 and the company name, it's possible to roughly figure out the odds of the third if your company has bonds or CDS. Maybe some bored analyst would do it for you here, or you could probably hire a financial advisor for an hour or 2 to figure it out.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a74ccfd8ffa26a2638753a76c7d37c52", "text": "There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. When you invest, you are purchasing an asset that has value. It is purchased in the hopes that the asset will either increase in value or generate income. This definition holds true whether you are investing in shares of stock, in real estate, or in a comic book collection. You can also purchase debt: if you loan money, you own debt that will (hopefully) be repaid and generate income. Gambling is playing a game for chance. When you gamble, you have not purchased an asset; you have only paid to participate in a game. Some games have a degree of skill (blackjack, poker), others are pure chance (slot machine). In most gambling games, the odds are against the player and in favor of the one running the game. Lottery tickets, without a doubt, are gambling. There is a good article on Investopedia that discusses the difference between investing and gambling in more detail. One thing that this article discusses is the house edge, or the advantage that the people running a gambling game have over the players. With most casino games, the house has an advantage of between 1 and 15% over the players. With a typical lottery, the house edge is 50%. To address some of the points made by the OP's recent edit and in the comments: I do not think the definitions of investment and gambling need to be dependent on expected value. There can be bad investments, where the odds of a good result are low. Similarly, there could be gambling games where the odds are in the player's favor, either due to the skill of the player or through some quirk of the game; it's still gambling. Investing is purchasing an asset; gambling is a game of chance. I do not consider a lottery ticket an asset. When you buy a lottery ticket, you are just paying a fee to participate in a game. It is the same as putting a coin in a slot machine. The fact that you are given a piece of paper and made to wait a few days for the result do not change this. Assets have inherent value. They might be valuable because of their ability to generate income (stocks, bonds, debt), their utility (precious metals, commodities, real estate), or their desirability as a thing of beauty (collectibles), for example. A lottery ticket, however, is only an element of a game. It has no value other than in the game.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81274e1b77476085f38c34e0060682d1", "text": "\"This question feels like an EL&U question to me, and so I will treat it as one. Investment, noun form of to invest, originally from the Latin investire, meaning to clothe, means: [T]o commit (money) in order to earn a financial return Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Invest, vb. tr., definition 1 As such, when a person commits money with the purpose of earning a financial return, they are investing. Playing the lottery, when done so for the purpose of financial return, would fall under this definition - even if it's a poor choice. Gambling, verb tense of to gamble, likely originally from the word gamen, meaning to play, means: a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Gamble, vb. itr., definition 1 Playing the lottery is clearly gambling (as a lottery is a game, by definition). The second definition could well include investing in the stock market, particularly certain kinds of investments (derivatives, currency speculation, for example). Aside from the definitions, however, normal usage clearly favors investment to be something with an expectation of positive return, while gambling is taking a risk without that expectation (rather with the hope of positive return). Legally, as well, playing the lottery is not something that is considered investment (so it is taxed differently). However, the question was \"\"Can\"\", and by definition, clearly it can be (assuming you are not asking legally).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aeb64b07561075ceb2b069672dc49c04", "text": "From a mathematical expected-value standpoint, there is no difference between gambling (e.g. buying a lottery ticket) and investing (e.g. buying a share of stock). The former probably has negative expected value while the latter probably has positive expected value, but that is not a distinction to include in a definition (else every company that gives a bad quarterly earnings report suddenly changes categories). However, investment professionals have a vested interest in claiming there is a difference; that justifies them charging fees to steer you into the right investment. Consequently, hair-splitting ideas like the motive behind a purchase are introduced. The classification of an item to be purchased should not depend on the mental state of its purchaser. Depending on the situation, it may be right to engage in negative EV behavior. For example, if you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1a614a6c1eba9e5fe5b6d85ad36831", "text": "\"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive? This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate. It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance. This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called \"\"betting\"\", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term. Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a \"\"bad investment\"\" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit. Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure. The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "943130ce93b4e51ffd1dd1b79a500bb6", "text": "\"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an \"\"investment\"\" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment. obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as \"\"gambling\"\", or just \"\"crappy investing\"\". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f175d50b874cfd98fd91db1fb224437", "text": "\"I am reminded of a dozen year old dialog. I asked my 6 year old, \"\"If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?\"\" She replied, \"\"Four, you can call it anything you want, but the dog still has four legs.\"\" Early on in my marriage, my wife was heading out to the mall, and remarked that she was \"\"going to invest in a new pair of shoes.\"\" I explained to her that while I was happy she would have new shoes to wear, words have meaning, and unless she was going to buy the ruby red slippers Dorothy wore in the Wizard of Oz, or Elvis' Blue Suede Shoes, her's were not expected to rise in value and weren't an investment. Some discussion followed, and we agreed even the treadmill, which is now 20 years old, was not an 'investment' despite the fact that it saved us more than its cost in a combined 40 years of gym memberships we did not buy. In the end, no one who is financially savvy calls a lottery ticket an investment, and few who buy them acknowledge that it's simply throwing money away.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf558c2e2343e30252737004eaaee0fe", "text": "\"Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results.\"\" Gambling: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.\"\" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b361912b65ba982ea0d1c4dfda2b2f4b", "text": "\"Buying lotteries tickets makes you the fish not the fisher. Just like casinos or drugs. If you like, you can call buying tickets an \"\"investment\"\" or better yet, a donation in the lottery's owner wealth. No real investor is dumb enough to get into a business where 99.9999999% of the \"\"investors\"\" lose EVERYTHING they invested. Besides, a real investments means BIG money. You can call it so if you are ready to sell your house and buy tickets of all those money, but still, the risk is so high that it's not worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e3a33499478e63a156d3575cb9e11", "text": "Something that is missing from the discussion is the actual market for the lottery ticket -- if a market existed for the tickets themselves, that would make this far more obvious, but since there isn't one; buying a single ticket gives different Expected Values, but since the ticket has a defined 'game' instance, a single ticket is a gamble. Playing the lottery in the long run could be part of a high risk investment portfolio. [edited for clarity]", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2091cd62b5cbca7826df3753f9b1e77a", "text": "\"Situation #1: I keep playing, and eventually earn 1000 PED. I withdraw this. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? This is probably considered an \"\"award\"\", so whatever your country taxes for lottery/gambling winnings would be applicable. If there's no specific taxation on this kinds of income - then it is ordinary income. Situation #2: I deposit $5000, play the game, lose some money and withdraw PED equal to $4000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Since it is a game, it is unlikely that deducting losses from your income would be allowed. However, the $4000 would probably not be taxed as income (since you are getting your own money back). Situation #3: I deposit $5000 and use this to buy in-game items. I later sell these items for massive profits (200%+, this can happen over the course of 2 years for sure). I withdraw $10000. Will I get taxed? If so, by how much? Either the same as #1 (i.e.: ordinary income) or as capital gains (although tax authority may argue that this was not a for-profit investment, and capital gains treatment shouldn't be applicable). Will I get taxed on withdrawals from Real Cash Economy games? And do the taxes apply to the full withdrawal, or only on the profits? Or only on the profits above a certain amount? Generally income taxes only apply on income. So if you paid $10000 and got back $12000 - only the $2000 is considered income. However some countries may tax full amounts under certain conditions. Such taxes are called \"\"franchise taxes\"\". For a proper tax advice consult with the locally licensed tax adviser.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2fe5acd9728103715dfdf53c097f4c8", "text": "A large number of the general population spends the huge of their cash to purchase lotto tickets and further on some mystery frameworks that offer ensured to win lottery money. The Global Lottery deals ascend to $300 billion for each annum. Take this game as stimulation, not as a source of income since it doesn't ensure that you win. Our lotto e-book motto is to show people how to win small prizes on a regular basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc0718cfe98e4cb618686f18277840e", "text": "Easy. Start with 2 millions and lose only one. Jokes aside, if you want a million USD, you should be asking yourself how you can produce products or services worth $5 millions. (expect the extra to be eaten up by taxes, marketing, sales, workforce...) If by investment you mean making risky bets on the stock market, you might have a better time going to Las Vegas. On the other hand, if by investment you mean finding something that will produce $$$ and getting involved, it's a different matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b6771db8851ff839a6450e6120b8f5d", "text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e9d51f5d01bddba46fc1ea96a54e20", "text": "\"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a \"\"good investment\"\", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists.\"", "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": "a18ba9d2615f5c10a7d2b53e773cae58", "text": "Although I am not a tax professional, and in this case you would be better off with a professional advice, my understanding (at least of Arizona, New York and California individual tax regulations that I've been dealing with) is that you only pay taxes in the state in which you're domiciled. Lottery winnings are payed by States/State-run corporations and as such sourced to the State that pays it. Buying a ticket in SC links you to the lottery run in that State, even if you live in another. You'll be claiming your winnings in SC, not in NC, and the winnings will be sourced to SC, not NC. As such SC will be taxing them. NC will be taxing them as well, since you're NC resident.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f387828f56595e9bb2de18d7b44aa736", "text": "A lot of these answers are really weak. The expected value is pretty much the answer. You have to also though, especially as many many millions of tickets are purchased--make part of the valuation the odds of the jackpot being split x ways. So about 1 in 290--> the jackpot needs to be a take-home pot of $580 million for the $2 ticket. Assume the average # of winners is about 1.5 so half the time you're going to split the pot, bringing the valuation needed for the same jackpot to be $870 million. It's actually somewhat not common to have split jackpots because the odds are very bad + many people pick 'favourite numbers'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98d9f2c9a4ae10eb6c2234f4874cd846", "text": "Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances. So either you win huge or lose a lot. Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc. Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on Speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4e169b6c52731461477d99dd8a91b8", "text": "I think playing certain kinds of lottery is as economically sound as buying certain kinds of insurance. A lottery is an inverted insurance. Let me elaborate. We buy insurance for at least two reasons. The first one is clear: We pay a fee to protect ourselves from a risk which we don't want to (or cannot) bear. Although on average buying insurance is a loss, because we pay all the insurance's office buildings and employee's salaries, it still is a reasonable thing to do. (But it should also be clear that it is unreasonable to buy insurance for risks one could easily bear oneself.) The second reason to buy insurance is that it puts us at ease. We don't have to be afraid of theft or of a mistake we make which would make us liable or of water damage to our house. In that sense we buy freedom of sorrow for a fee, even if the damage wouldn't in fact ruin us. That's totally legitimate. Now I want to make the argument that buying a lottery ticket follows the same logic and is therefore not economically unreasonable at all. While buying a lottery ticket is on average a loss, it provides us with a chance to obtain an amount of money we would normally never get. (Eric Lippert made this argument already.) The lottery fee buys us a small chance of something very valuable, much as the insurance frees us from a small risk of something very bad. If we don't buy the ticket, we may have 0% chance of becoming (extremely) rich. If we buy one, we clearly have a chance > 0%, which can be considered an improvement. (Imagine you'd have a 0.0000001% chance to save the life of a loved one with a ticket who'd be 100% doomed otherwise. You'd bite.) Even the second argument, that an insurance puts us at ease, can be mirrored for lotteries. The chance to win something may provide entertainment in our otherwise dull everyday life. Considering that playing the lottery only makes sense for the chance to obtain more money than otherwise possible, one should avoid lotteries which have lots of smaller prizes because we are not really interested in those. (It would be more economical to save the money for smaller amounts.) We ideally only want lotteries which lean on the big money prizes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b31c1ca4e910dfd4bbe5570f884252d", "text": "No. You owe taxes in the state you made the money. So unless you can convince the lottery company to retroactively move to Puerto Rico or such, you can't. As others said, if you win, that should not be your worries..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b0c1e7fed13cf2a37b7ee9f879cd5af", "text": "Firstly, playing the lottery is not investing it is gambling. The odds in gambling are always against you and with the house. Secondly, no one would ever give you a payout of 3 to 1 when the odds are 50:50, unless they were looking to give away money. Even when you place your chips on either red or black on a roulette table your payout if you are correct is 100% (double your money), however the odds of winning are less than 50%, there are 18 reds, 18 blacks and 2 greens (0 and 00). Even if you place your chips on one single number, your payout will be 35:1 but your odds of winning are 1:38. The odds are always with the house. If you want to play the lotto, use some money you don't need and expect to lose, have some fun and enjoy yourself if you get any small winnings. Gambling should be looked at as a source of entertainment not a source of investing. If you take gambling more serious than this then you might have a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180d2a7f0af42c2226913663d438e41b", "text": "\"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8357a729b20014c82aa2ce046b89fe1c", "text": "\"Gambling is perhaps not well defined, but it certainly doesn't include things like reality show winnings. However, it is possible he could deduct something for this. If the reality show qualifies as a \"\"hobby\"\", and his expenses exceed the 2% of AGI requirement, it's possible he could deduct those airplane tickets and such. That deduction is explained in Publication 529.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acc0cc7b924cbf49ca9a80edd4ec788", "text": "The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2baba78dfdae88f69f0fe2537b25cb3a", "text": "According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f322ddbf93372f3941aa018e48da74ed", "text": "paypal says it works with CBE but can't seem to link my account with them, but skrill works perfectly just go to www.skrill.com sign up and you can link your bank account with your skrill account, i've had a few transactions so it should work for you too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ebe64ae34acfabbb767ba96a5b00dc0", "text": "If the vendor accepts cryptocurrencies, this may be your only option. It's not clear if exporting cryptocurrency violates Ethiopian law, but at least cryptocurrencies have not yet been banned. If you can find someone who can trade you cryptocurrency, you can send it anywhere. Because cryptocurrencies are still extremely price volatile, I recommend you use Ripple, the fastest I can find. It can 100% confirm transactions on average within 10 seconds. This will keep your exposure to price volatility at a minimum if you send the cryptocurrency as soon as you buy it. If you choose this route, please take precausions. Your government may retroactively ban it and pursue you. Considering the Ethiopian government's history, this is not unlikely, and banning cryptocurrencies outright is.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "92bc54545894a84958a397e020d8c194", "text": "\"Nowadays, some banks in some countries offer things like temporary virtual cards for online payments. They are issued either free of charge or at a negligible charge, immediately, via bank's web interface (access to which might either be free or not, this varies). You get a separate account for the newly-issued \"\"card\"\" (the \"\"card\"\" being just a set of numbers), you transfer some money there (same web-interface), you use it to make payment(s), you leave $0 on that \"\"card\"\" and within a day or a month, it expires. Somewhat convenient and your possible loss is limited tightly. Check if your local banks offer this kind of service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "171da9a1d82cdc4cd6214ec74d6f3edf", "text": "With the recent drive in AML [Anti Money Laundering], quite a few countries being signatories; the central banks in almost all countries[that matter] have put in stronger KYC guidelines. This means you will not be able to remotely open a Bank Account in Thailand. More info at below links http://www.bangkokbank.com/BANGKOKBANK/PERSONALBANKING/SPECIALSERVICES/FOREIGNCUSTOMERS/Pages/Openinganaccountnew.aspx http://www.samuifinder.com/en/koh-samui-info/money-in-thailand/bank-account-thailand/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47a26543206f7468bb70e67639da2474", "text": "No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e6e9db9180e560964e04f5236776f4b", "text": "You could use a Credit or Debit Card running in US $, drawing from your US$ account, and pay everything with it. If you pick a company with free foreign conversions, you would get the standard interbank exchange ratio every time you pay, with no fee. For the small payments where credit cards are not accpeted or useful you can convert some cash once every some month - all significant amounts should work with credit or debit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe59b73bc4ebfe8b534e03f3f4cc6a5", "text": "\"Yes, many banks offer such a service. Often such payments can be made through their \"\"bill pay\"\" interface. You log in to your account on the bank's website, enter the recipient's routing and account numbers, and off you go. You could ask your bank whether they offer this. If not, you could change banks to one that does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f", "text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5adab0640e28fa25efff4062a2c1ffa7", "text": "\"Is there a solution here that would allow me to provide him with a debit card in his name that I could fund, that wouldn't have foreign transaction fees associated with it (I'd probably be okay with a small fixed ATM fee). There are separate issues here. There is no law limiting bank accounts to U.S. citizens, but most banks will not open an account for a non-citizen outside their declared service area. There are substantial legal liabilities to the bank in allowing it, whether a citizen or non-citizen. The difficulty will be compliance with the Patriot Act. This is an extension of the older \"\"Know Your Customer\"\" doctrine. It is improbable that the bank could comply with the Act without the potential customer being physically present. You would have to check with your bank in advance as to their policies. Banks are not required to accept a customer outside their policies. As to waiving the foreign transaction fee, that is very improbable. Although a handful of institutions do this in specific cases it is uncommon because the bank isn't actually charging the fee, they are passing it along. With a credit card they collect interest and waiving the fee can be thought of as a reduction in interest income, that isn't possible on a debit card. You would want to make sure you have a scrupulously honest nephew. You could be held criminally liable for any actions he takes at both the state and the federal level. U.S. law is global. A citizen who commits a crime in any country of the world can be charged for it in the United States. By being on the account you can acquire any liabilities that are created as an accomplice. This is a bigger issue at the federal level because 4,000 federal laws do not require criminal intent. Some do not require you to even know the action happened. Unlike state law which generally requires you intended to commit a crime and had to be aware of it, federal law often does not. It is also not adequate that the action is legal in Russia if it would be illegal in the United States. If I get a card in my name, and give it to him to use to withdraw money from ATMs, is that legal? What problems might that cause? It is legal, but you are now strictly liable for its use. See the above answer. It would probably get shut down anyway when they phone you and asked: \"\"are you in Russia right now?\"\" The bank is still liable for you giving away the card. The bank may close out all your accounts and submit a currency transaction report on you to the Treasury for possible money laundering. Wire the money. Plan out how much and when, but just wire it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f04c572febf901d91fa7fbf164c5f1f", "text": "Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73851022abdb3f0a43549072dcdda4a5", "text": "This really should be a comment, but I can't yet. The question desperately needs a location tag. In at least some countries(New Zealand), the default action on all insufficient funds transactions is to refuse the transaction. Credit cards are the only common exception. Every bank operating in NZ that I know of acts this way. Sometimes there is a fee for bouncing a transaction, sometimes not, that depends on the bank. Any other option must be explicitly arranged in writing with the bank. Personally, coming from a country where declining transactions is the default, I'd be shocked and angry to be stuck with an automatic transfer from another account. Angry enough to change banks if they won't immediately cease and desist.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b25d87de6f12b66ccaba4060f36109", "text": "You would need to ask the College. If they accept Wire Transfer, get the Bank details and ask your bank in Ethiopia to make the international transfer. If the college asks for a Bankers check or some other form, take these details and ask you Bank in Ethiopia to arrange for same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37f1468d33edbdf2cc73c45e8868ae69", "text": "\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1", "text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f82db3f78d5f5a19e418772f91d4da", "text": "Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b104d3cec797c0803b96f0f4af67700", "text": "If you only need to buy stuff online you could consider using paypal perhaps? If you really need an bank account, you could also look at an offshore bank account, HSBC has accounts in multiple currencies, but you will need to be eligible (have a ton of money and provide some documentation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36094ade5ebd58a72431950f9e483f7d", "text": "This is not allowed, and there is a name for it: IBAN discrimination. Searching for that term will give you some pointers what to do about it. The EU regulation that prohibits this is 260/2012, article 9, paragraph 2: A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3. You can report this at the relevant national authorities. In the Netherlands, this is De Nederlandsche Bank, which has a special e-mail address for this: [email protected]", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d75938a10742f81799f59ece75028329", "text": "In most countries trading platforms are legally required to be overseen by a regulator, in the US this is the SEC (Securities and Exchanges Commission). This regulatory oversight is required in order to operate (i.e. have clients) in that country and the company will lose the right to operate in that country if they do not comply with the regulations. If you believe that you have genuine cause to complain that a trading platform that you are using within your jurisdiction is behaving unfairly towards you you can report this to the regulator and they will investigate so long as you can provide them with some concrete evidence. Note that in many jurisdictions gambling websites are also regulated (they are in the UK for example) and so arguments about their fairness are specious. A big problem with a lot of these complaints is that people who lose money are very vocal about blaming everyone else, people who make money are very vocal about their own amazing skills... think about that!", "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": "6b064ac71a22895db36a8e842295dc54", "text": "\"Traditional brokers There are tons of players in this market, especially in USA. You have traditional brokers, brokers tied to your bank and a bunch of startups. The easiest is probably a broker tied to your bank, because you probably don't have to wait to fund your brokerage account and can start trading immediately. Often the older/traditional brokers don't have very intuitive interfaces, it's the startups who do a better job at this. But honestly it doesn't really matter, because you can use reporting services that are different from the services you use to execute your trades. Meaning that you only use the interface of your broker to execute trades (buy or sell), and use third party services to monitor your holdings. Monitoring services: Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Sigfig, Morningstar,... are services allowing you to monitor your holdings. But you can't execute trades with them. Start-ups: Then there are a bunch of startups that offer investment services besides the traditional brokers. Start-up > Robinhood The most ambitious one is Robinhood, which offers the same service as a traditional broker, but completely free (most of the traditional brokers charge a flat fee and/or percentage when buying/selling hodlings) and with an intuitive interface. They're mobile first, but announced they will be launching their service on the web soon. Start-up > Acorns Another popular, mobile-first start-up is Acorns. They offer a lazy-investing service which rounds your everyday purchases and uses the change to invest. It's great when investing is not on your mind, but you still want to invest without realizing it. Start-ups > Robo-advisors Robo-advisors auto-invest your money across a bunch of funds picked based on your risk profile. Because the robo-advisers are fairly new, they often have the most intuitive interfaces. These robo-advisors often don't allow you to pick individual holdings, so these services are best when you want to passively invest. Meaning you don't want to look at it very often, and let them do the investing for you. There are tons of robo-advisor start-ups: Betterment, Wealthfront, Personal Capital, Sigfig, FutureAdvisor,... Also bigger parties jumped on this trend with their offerings: Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Ally Managed Portfolio, Vanguard Personal Advisor, etc. Summary: It's fun to pick individual stocks, but if you start out it can be overwhelming. Robinhood is probably the best start, they have reduced functionality, but gets you going with an attractive interface. But soon you'll realize it's extremely hard to beat the market. Meaning that hand-picking stocks statistically gives you a worse return than just buying into the general stock market (like S&P500). So you can decide to just buy one fund with a traditional broker that covers the general stock market. Or you can decide to try out one of the many robo-advisors. They haven't been around that long, so it's hard to tell how effective these are and whether they beat the market. If you're young, and you believe in start-ups (who often try to challenge the traditional players), try out one of the robo-advisors. If you want to play a bit and are addicted to your smartphone, try out Robinhood. If you are addicted to your phone, but don't want to check up on your investments all the time, go for Acorns. Of course you can combine all these. Lastly, there are tons of cryptocurrencies which might give you a large return. Tons of startups offer intuitive interfaces to trade cryptocurrencies like Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken. But beware, there is a lot of risk involved in trading cryptocurrencies, it's completely unregulated etc. But definitely check them out. Oh, and you can also invest by giving out loans through LendingClub, Prosper etc. Who can you trust? Above gives you an overview of your options intermingled with some reasoning. But regarding your question \"\"who can I trust\"\" in terms of advice, it's up to yourself. Most traditional broker services don't give you any advice at all, you're on your own. Robo-advisors don't give you advice either, but let their proprietary algorithm do the job. Are these reliable? Nobody can tell, they haven't been around long enough, and they need to go through a bear market (a crash) to see how they respond during rough times. Some robo-advisors offer you personal consultancy (I believe Sigfig and PersonalCapital) does this (limited to a few hours per year). But obviously they'll try to promote their robo-advisor services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2704c078f80d8d138f300f06472359d9", "text": "\"Somebody ELI5 why I should trust a \"\"currency\"\" whose value bounces around on the whims of [tulip-craze](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp) fanboys? Especially one that is second only to \"\"the dark web\"\" for rumors of: 1. Money laundering. 2. \"\"Hoarding\"\" of cash. 3. Tax avoidance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5d5a5909158363614bb429a80443610", "text": "If you do your homework on the front end, so can find reliable, quality suppliers. You can avoid scams and fraud. And you can then avoid the path of last resort, the Alibaba Fair Play Fund. And the Fair Play Fund is not a bad thing - it helps compensate users who have lost money - but avoiding it is critical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87c918ac473f94040564403acebf382b", "text": "For most of the people who are involved in the activity of investing in online stock trading, there will be the need of online brokers. With the investments in the online trades, people will be required to put their stock accounts in a particular platform. To know more about the best online brokers for stock trading, log on to http://www.stocktipsblog.com/", "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": "e4c507a80e084edb607b3096f6e1e8cf", "text": "It's a good answer. I was alluding to cryptocurrency such as bitcoin which was a pretty genius invention (blockchain and mining) to solve the honesty problem (counterparty risk) you outlined when there's no trusted middleman to help keep people honest. Sounds like a dodgy cat though!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91cbe6463d6bee3a60a59449dc4aff85", "text": "Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Then check their prices daily. With daily price swings of over 10% (both up and down) being a common occurrence, you'll quickly learn how high your risk tolerance really is. :) A lot of IT people believe that cryptocurrencies will stay. Whether Bitcoin or Ethereum will be among them is anyone's guess. Compare to the Dotcom boom, which will be Amazon.com and which will be Pets.com?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f26d63f018d5a9aa01c4fbd8a7689c", "text": "Concerning the Broker: eToro is authorized and registered in Cyprus by the Cyprus Securities Exchange Commission (CySEC). Although they are regulated by Cyprus law, many malicious online brokers have opened shop there because they seem to get along with the law while they rip off customers. Maybe this has changed in the last two years, personally i did not follow the developments. eToro USA is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and thus doing business in a good regulated environment. Of course the CFTC cannot see into the future, so some black sheep are getting fined and even their license revoked every now and then. It has no NFA Actions: http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Details.aspx?entityid=45NH%2b2Upfr0%3d Concerning the trade instrument: Please read the article that DumbCoder posted carefully and in full because it contains information you absolutely have to have if you are to do anything with Contract for difference (CFD). Basically, a CFD is an over the counter product (OTC) which means it is traded between two parties directly and not going through an exchange. Yes, there is additional risk compared to the stock itself, mainly: To trade a CFD, you sign a contract with your broker, which in almost all cases allows the broker A CFD is just a derivative financial instrument which allows speculating / investing in an asset without trading the actual asset itself. CFDs do not have to mirror the underlying asset's price and price movement and can basically have any price because the broker quotes you independently of the underlying. If you do not know how all this works and what the instrument / vehicle actually is and how it works; and do not know what to look for in a broker, please do not trade it. Do yourself a favor and get educated, inform yourself, because otherwise your money will be gone fast. Marketing campaigns such as this are targeted at people who do not have the knowledge required and thus lose a significant portion (most of the time all) of their deposits. Answer to the actual question: No, there is no better way. You can by the stock itself, or a derivative based on it. This means CFDs, options or futures. All of them require additional knowledge because they work differently than the stock. TL;DR: DumbCoder is absolutely right, do not do it if you do not know what it is about. EDIT: Revisiting this answer and reading the other answers, i realize this sounds like derivatives are bad in general. This is absolutely not the case, and i did not intend it to sound this way. I merely wanted to emphasize the point that without sufficient knowledge, trading such products is a great risk and in most cases, should be avoided.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad6841767cff5094170f9bcd9d79f13c", "text": "Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc2a646dd3614c87720d10818e87a883", "text": "I am considering making my investment history publicly available online What is the benefit you are looking for by doing this? Just to establish that you are a successful investor, so in long run can predict things ... have tons of followers? If so yes. Go ahead. Updates to the portfolio would have to be near real-time than post facto else no one will believe you and it would be useless. are there any reasons (legal, personal, etc.) not to publicize my personal investment history legal, depends on country; I can't think any [check the agreement with your broker / depository] on how much can be displayed. i.e. they may forbid from revealing contract ref / or some other details. On Personal front, it depends who takes a liking to your stuff. Relatives: They know you are making huge profits and may want to borrow stuff ... or queue up to you requesting to make similar huge profits for them; only to realize when there is loss they blame you ... this can strain relationships. Friends: Although close friends may have a general idea, if you are too successful and it shows; it can have its own set of issues to deal with. Colleagues / Manager: If you are too successful, it may mean you may notionally be earning more than them ... they would start unconsciously monitoring your behaviour ... this guy spends all day in office researching for stocks and doesn't work. That way he knows how to pick good stock ... he is wasting company time. The same happens if you are loosing stock ... a unrelated bad day you are having maybe equated to loss in stocks. Depending on the job / roles, they may move you to different role as the perceived risk of you swindling goes up. Generally important work doesn't get assigned, as it would be assumed that if you are successful in investing, you may quite soon and start full time into it. Identify Theft: As mentioned by keshlam, to much data one can easily risk identity theft. Realize phone banking to get some routine stuff just asks for basic details [that are available on face book] and few recent debits / credits to the account. This will be easy see the trades you have done. None of us here are expert identity theifs. But the real one have tons of way t", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaf6c3310231fc85c46cd31aa5e7a832", "text": "The answer is no. Online trading is not premature, and hasn't been for a long time. The presence of online complaints has no bearing on the maturity of this means of trading. I'm sure you can find negative reviews of banks, brokers, grocery stories, online retailers, car manufacturers etc. but no one in their right might would consider those industries premature. Sorry, I think your avoidance based on some online reviews sounds a little paranoid. What exactly are you afraid of? Maybe I could provide a more precise answer if we knew your exact concerns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12a58a54340c2c916b6a76aff74c9518", "text": "After reading their full guarantee page, it seems that they really don't understand the definition of the word. They don't seem to offer any guarantee, but rather just a list of reasons that they believe their plan is foolproof. Mostly they argue that their lawyers have covered every angle and a lot of big players use them so naturally everyone will respect the value of their online currency. Nowhere do they address what happens if their company goes belly up, which is the primary thing I'd be worried about with this type of thing. Ironically they specifically state on their guarantee page Many first-rate payment systems tried to guarantee their stability but unfortunately failed to fulfill their obligations given to the users and contractors. Myopic investment policy and court claims of tax agencies have frequently adversely affected the work of Electronic Payment Systems. Which, personally, would make me even MORE nervous to use their system. Their guarantee amounts to, other systems have crashed and burned, but we are smarter than those guys and even hired lawyers to confirm it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1acd982f856bbe19b66802f7b507ad10", "text": "I definitely want it, all of my cash that i've accumulated goes into my brokerage but I just wanted to check that in can be done. I just wanted to see if anyone knew anyone personally or anything like that because most of the time it's people e-bragging or bullshitting to make them seem like something. I also wanted to see if it is still feasible with all of the algo trading and stuff that has been dominating the market versus an individual trader. Thanks for your reply though, I like the analogy a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "3c36672b381c86276903fa1f9237200e", "text": "I was recently at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK and discussing exactly this. By January 2018 financial institutes will be legally required to time stamp all transactions (including high frequency trades) with a UTC time code. Today this is almost exclusively done using GPS satellite time and as the OP states - these can be spoofed but also are vulnerable to certain weather conditions. One of the many innovations of NPL in their recent diversification includes sending ‘time’ into the city by optical fibre which is ‘gold standard and cannot be tampered with’. Very interesting topic ( I thought )!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "aa706c78eb65dc0e73d27be0980001c0", "text": "Staying in Idaho, you could pursue some additional degree and try to get a job with a bank in the area as an investment advisor of some sort. However, I have doubts as to whether or not you'd be able to employ your creativity and test your own instincts in that sort of a position. If you really want to get into the big-money investment sector, I'd suggest a move to a financial hub (Chicago, New York, San Francisco) and getting a job programming for a big firm. After obtaining some experience there, you may be able to transfer to a more investment-oriented position (at the same firm or another) and from there to a position where you can unleash your talent (assuming you have some). Putting a degree in finance somewhere in the mix would help too. Consider the following. You want to make $50,000/yr (low) by running a fund with a 1% expense ratio (high) investing other peoples' money... you're dealing with at least $5 million. That's a good chunk of change. To be entrusted with that kind of money is kind of a big deal, and you'll need to get some people to believe in your capabilities. You're not likely to get that kind of trust working out of Boise. Even if you're just doing research for some fund manager, you're not likely to find too many of those in Boise either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04", "text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "003e10251585cd7b5cdf6042ae837ae0", "text": "Step 1: Get a part-time job in sales. Perhaps selling appliances at Sears. Step 2: If you are great at that, then look into becoming a stock broker/investment adviser in Boise ... which is a sales job. Step 3: If you are great at that, then you might be able to become a portfolio manager, perhaps a hedge fund manager for the clients you collected as a stock broker/ investment consultant. That seems to be the steps I have seen from reading the bios of a number of professional investors. The other method seems to be an MBA from a top 10 business school.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c4d74a187ce9d827a308f17fa8561d36", "text": "okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5c7f7d203e7382c51786e86d48f3934", "text": "Before you even enroll in a good financial school, register for an account with a bank that allows you to manage a stock portfolio. I prefer TD Ameritrade. You do have to be 18 (Just register it under your parents, it doesn't matter. Just make sure they fill out the information portion. Get the SSN and tax info right. Basically it's their account, you're just managing it. ) That way you'll have some good, practical experience going into it. Understand that working with money can be a very cut-throat industry, be ready to be competing with people constantly. Also, surround yourself with books from successful stock brokers, investment bankers, things like that. When you're working you'll want information like that. Good luck, and I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6733503969aa5c9d4a28db6682da7ab3", "text": "Unless and until you are ready to do the ground work and get your hands dirty in the market, it is better to let the money where it is. But how to distribute money in which asset classes, industry etc is your choice to make. But remember that a big investment company doesn't guarantee that you will always earn a return higher than the market or it is safe with them. They are also bound to make mistakes and go bust, but it would be quite rare for companies, with billions of assets because they have strict checks in place and invest with extreme caution and proper research. One option is to try dabbling in the markets yourself, slowly, not everything at once. You will learn a lot and there are loads of information on the net and books in stores which could get you started. You will need to do a lot of groundwork to beat the market. That is difficult but not impossible. People have done it time and time again and they have put in hard work to do so. And I don't see with a little bit of work and time, why you shouldn't be able to do that, unless and until you are lazy and don't intend to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c255f9fe7a02eec2d330e649199f09dc", "text": "Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "252851bb2da3621d7ad059dcc0ae87fb", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de9922aee25c5dcff6072c4d5429de7", "text": "Yeah true that. Counseling people to avoid the negatives has been more beneficial in my life than great recommendations. Even one mistake and you're up shit's creek. And I will say I have the knowledge to help people to avoid mistakes, but sometimes it devolves into mud slinging (unfortunately). If this wasn't a new account then it might give you an indication of how I've done this in the past. Most of the time it takes too much explaining to get people up to speed though. A word to the wise: I'd recommend being open to switching industries. Everyone in finance is pretty toxic and all ended up there because of money. End up chasing the CFA (cancer distilled into three exams), grad school, nonsense corporate jobs, or the dream in high finance/small shops where the founders don't think they need another smart hard-working person. Even if if it's obvious they do. I remember reaching out and counseling a firm on selling a position that I felt was really stupid. It was not at all in line with their investing objectives and also was one I would never touch. The guy actually agreed with me, didn't hire me (I was after a job), didn't sell the position, and lost them approx. $12 million within 12 months with my math on their 13-F's. I only reach out to firms I respect, which works out to about 1 firm per 100k people in population from what I've seen (in a city like Pittsburgh this was only 4 shops). That means there are maybe 200 people in the US who would make a hiring decision on me for what I like to do. But I've stopped playing that game. I now run a healthcare business I started. It was hard as hell to open but I now run circles around people because nobody actually is in the business of the industry. The doctors, nurses, etc. are all extremely bright - just not in my area. Makes for a much more fun workday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "463fa73a0da279bb43beb2b3d9493116", "text": "\"So you are off to a really good start. Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing. With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills. They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation. If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life. I would keep £10K or so in a boring savings account. Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity. I would encourage you to take an intermediary step: Moving out on your own. I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home. I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months. Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own. It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds. Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric. If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts. (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings). This becomes your retire at 60 fund. (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.) For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure. The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food. This will become your buy a house fund. This is something that should be safe and secure. Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks. I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a \"\"Blue chip index fund\"\", and 25% in a preferred stock fund. This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow. Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house. You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash. If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income. Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property. One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat. A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner. Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit: After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "126517c7db1abd5867ef8b628dc95969", "text": "How does one get into a position in their career where their work involves a lot of personal judgement to value investments? I'm going into my junior year of undergrad...does it take years of certain experience in the finservices industry to actually get a job/position type like yours? Sounds like an ideal job!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3da0cd1c67d1c4cc43b2d6c2096f217", "text": "Not sure why you're posting in r/finance; did you meant to post in /r/PersonalFinances ? Or /r/financialindependence ? Anyway, I'll play. There are 3 ways you can go about it, make it 4: 1. Commercial: find yourself a job/career that you'd do it for free. I once met a guy who was in your similar situation and he had a hot dog stand in the hearth of the financial district of a large US city; he did it for the fun and to be social. He'd be there only when the Stock Market was open and if the weather was good. You could also develop a more challenging career for the satisfaction of it: writer, artists, craftsman.... You could go back to school, or take an online class, or do an online degree for the pure satisfaction of it all 2. Start a company. Similar to #1 above, but this this 100% entrepreneurial. It could be just yourself, or enlist the help of the wife; full time or part time. This again, follow your passion; since you're set financially it should not that difficult to break even. With time you could grow and hire people, but that increase the complexity and you might find yourself managing the business and not actually getting the satisfaction of doing what you had set to do. 3. Volunteer: find a non profit whose mission aligns with your values, and volunteer there; 1 or a couple of organizations; if you're up to it with time you could climb up the ranks ... 4. Mentoring: there are a lot of people who dream about being in your situation. I am sure it was not luck but hard work as well. You could become a blogger, write a book (in your name or anonymously); or mentor directly someone, reddit and a web site is a good marketing start. If you have enough money (accredited investor) you could become an angel investor, or join an angel consortium to help people with your background to make something out of themselves. 5. A combination of 2 or more from the above.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4af05e63f5307611cd4398055972c67c", "text": "After losing my job (age 59) I started trading currencies. Many people have talents that they can use online and turn them into a business. Once I figured out how to trade I started writing eBooks on how to trade. What is your area of expertise, I bet you have one or can develop one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0602eb2408df6d73c04c5a0a08efd72a", "text": "\"If that's your goal. Watch the entire webinar on warren buffet books by Preston Pysh first for a good intro into stocks bonds etc: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLECECA66C0CE68B1E&amp;v=KfDB9e_cO4k Read Dale Carnegies book \"\"How to Win Friends and Influence People\"\" in order to learn how to communicate to people effectively and create networks. The most important skill in any field you choose to go into. Read \"\"The Everything Store\"\" for essentially an MBA in business. Read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin graham for a bachelors in finance. Then take classes that get you the very best professors in the field of finance, economics, and business at your school and make sure you never stop asking questions. Continue to develop your skills and create good saving &amp; communication habits. And if you want great jobs, get internships. To get internships be involved in as much as you can in campus and take leadership roles (especially when you think you can't handle it) you will grow quickly as a leader and businessman if you do it right. If reading is a bit much for you, try audiobooks. And make sure you enjoy college and surround yourself with ambitious youngsters like yourself. It will help you grow. Enjoy school and be social, make mistakes and do whatever it takes to get a minimum 3.5 GPA (get old tests study groups easy teachers or GPA boosting classes if you need to) Aight that's all I got haha\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f873732b1561ed479b43d1d2d0c5ae3", "text": "\"I switched to the buy side, here is some things you should do. First of all, you already had 6 interviews. I would say the HR people are going to be less helpful because its harder to differentiate yourself. If you are talking to an investment portfolio, and they ask you any of type of... What are you interested in? How did you get into this space? You better have multiple stock pitches lined up. For example, on the the first question I'm interested in IM because I was exposed at an early age by my parents. Although I didn't know what I was doing, I kept following (STOCK 1, you're first crack in the doorway). *more about your background stuff* In fact, STOCK 1 turned out to be one of my best/worst trades. I thought it was going here and it went there due to this and that and etc...*more info about stock 1* Now, I like to look at names such as STOCK 2-5 because they are show (this multiple or that yield or these moats, depending on who you are talking to). That is how you get a job through an informational interview. As for how you get an informational interview? Go run through linkedin. Sort for investment management. Any person you have a 2nd degree network or Group network is fair game. Just shoot your common friend an email (hey whats up, i saw you were friends with X, i'm really interested in his company can you put me in touch). Although the end person may never respond, the connection is like almost guaranteed to help (assuming you're a nice friendly person). Recruiting for IM is a full time job. Even other industries as well. My roommate graduated Haas Business Undergrad program (top 3 in the country) in TWO years (not 2 letters and science + 2 business, but 2 total years) at 19 years old, took him a full year of recruiting and paying his own way out to NY to meet people to land an banking job (due to similar circumstances, as he was fully out of school and wasn't in the normal rotation). What really concerns me is you keep saying \"\"analysis.\"\" It makes me think that you have no clue what you want to do. Tell me what analysis means. If you want to recruit for IM, you better be watching the markets everyday (esp if you are unemployed), have opinions on lots of companies, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc39d91d4ee180fe587330a6019f814", "text": "You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b8f5ad2035755610aa45bc32b482f3c", "text": "I'd say only look for business opportunities in areas where you have quite a lot of specific knowledge, or the ability to learn from someone who already has it. Further, particularly in a saturated market like the one you describe, you need to have a clear idea of how you're going to be better than other players. It's not enough to just want to do something to make money. You need a solid plan and a solid angle on how you're going to be better than others. If you don't have those things yet for what you're looking at, do more research until you do. If you never get there, don't bother. You're essentially saying you want to exploit arbitrage opportunities, which is a legitimate way to make a living, but it requires a LOT of market knowledge, because there are probably millions of people doing the exact same thing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "79c22338193a3f1a2c9fa3b0730fc78e", "text": "As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82a1de33a2e64a523ba56e8e1b2a00b7", "text": "It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e762b8f5ee752485d2454dd9fec47d", "text": "You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk", "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": "5df958f055f89850c898e58a57842222", "text": "\"When you say \"\"major\"\", I take it you're an undergrad? If so, how many years left do you have in your program? I ask because it might be worthwhile to major in math in lieu of - or in addition to - finance. It's unlikely that an undergraduate major in a business school will give you the technical skill-set necessary to do what you want. Also, if you want to do prop trading, learn as much statistics/econometrics as you can handle. As for masters programs, I'm not really sure. MFE programs seem more aimed towards people working on the sell-side, e.g. as derivatives quants. EDIT: I accidentally some grammar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d55e2123743cdd8329b8a35345731e11", "text": "In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcd63746460412b016148057d123dec0", "text": "It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6836e3ee612b5edaa4d1ad8008ede62", "text": "My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception: &gt; Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below. If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b", "text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39fac01405b61176cd3e961c7a2eb120", "text": "\"Legally ok? Sure. Friends frequently discuss financial matters, and share advice. This is quite far from taking money from them and managing it, where at some point you need to be licensed for such things. If you're concerned about giving bad advice, just stay generic. The best advice has no risk. If I offer a friend a stock tip, of course there's the chance the stock goes south, but when I tell a friend who asks about the difference between Mutual Funds and ETFs, and we discuss the expenses each might have, I'm still leaving the decision as to which ETF to him. When I offer the 'fortune cookie' soundbites like \"\"If you are going to make a large purchase, delay it a week for each $100 of value. e.g. if you really want a $1000 TV, sleep on it for a few months\"\" no one can mis-apply this. I like those two sites you mentioned, but the one-on-one is good for the friend and for you. You can always learn more, and teaching helps you hone your skills.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f24297fb61becba24d76ac71c8ec800e", "text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2fee46231608345a1eb985c0a67d440", "text": "You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.", "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": "da86b2a6326a363f8c2b145ab436c8c8", "text": "\"First of all, since you're 16 - you will not invest in anything. You cannot, you're a minor. You cannot enter contracts, and as such - you cannot transact in property. Your bank accounts are all UGMA accounts. I.e.: your guardian (or someone else who's the trustee on the account) will be the one transacting, not you. You can ask them to do trades, but they don't have to. They must make decisions in your best interest, which trades may not necessarily be. If however they decide to make trades, or earn interest, or make any other decision that results in gains - these are your gains, and you will be taxed on them. The way taxes work is that you're taxed on income. You're free to do with it whatever you want, but you're taxed on it. So if you realized gains by selling stocks, and reinvested them - you had income (the gains) which you did with whatever you felt like (reinvested). The taxman doesn't care what you did with the gains, the taxman cares that you had them. For losses it is a bit more complicated, and while you can deduct losses - there are limitations on how much you can deduct, and some losses cannot be deducted at all when realized (like wash sale losses or passive activity losses). When you have stock transactions, you will probably need to file a tax return reporting the transactions and your gains/losses on them. You may end up not paying any tax at all, but since the broker is reporting the transactions - you should too, if only to avoid IRS asking why you didn't. This, again, should be done by your guardian, since you personally cannot legally sign documents. You asked if your gains can affect your parents' taxes. Not exactly - your parents' taxes can affect you. This is called \"\"Kiddie Tax\"\" (unofficially of course). You may want read about it and take it into account when discussing your investments with your guardian/parents. If kiddie tax provisions apply to you - your parents should probably discuss it with their tax adviser.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce3fbd446013c0224cc90bf725238b8d", "text": "Probably. It sounds like you're looking for a 1031-exchange for stocks and bonds. From the wikipedia page for 1031-exchanges: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, though securitized properties are not excluded. 1031-exchanges usually are applicable in real estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebc0219212e0782242fc0ec7d8b75774", "text": "It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5390ccf80d5ca97b63c0c6cb1002ce4d", "text": "Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98a980cf6b39eb272d0d8c2a02cba413", "text": "\"A savings account and a checking account (or a \"\"demand\"\" account, or a \"\"transactional\"\" account) have different regulations. For example, fractional reserve requirements are 10% against checking accounts, but 0% against savings accounts. The theory is that savings accounts are sticky, while checking accounts are hot money. So the Fed wants to stop banks from creating accounts that are regulated as savings accounts but have the features of checking accounts. In the past, this was done by forbidding banks to pay interest on checking accounts. They eliminated that rule back in the inflation years, and instead imposed the rule that to qualify as a savings accounts for regulatory purposes, banks must discourage you from using them as transactional accounts. For example, by limiting the number of withdrawals per month that can be made from a savings account. If the Fed gave up on trying to enforce a distinction, I suspect there would soon no longer be a distinction.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "03eefa72a1390fb78982f750e40bfd7f", "text": "Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4cbc08ca586bb6481b02839029c3f7d0", "text": "What you are looking here is the cost of capital, because that is what you are effectively giving up in order to invest in those loans. In a discounted cash-flow, it would be the *i* in the denominator (1+*i*). For instance, instead of purchasing those loans you could have lent your money at the risk-free rate (not 100% true, but typical assumption), and therefore you are taking a slight risk in those loans for a higher return. There are several ways to compute that number, the one most often used would be the rate if the bank were to lend that money. In this way, it would be the Fed Funds rate plus some additional risk premium.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ace463ec495857250cc8631b9ee890", "text": "I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%. I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc. We are expected to play by the rules and they are not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c0081f11b746bf57c7e9a1076671560", "text": "Basically, what you describe exists in many countries - not in the USA though. In Europe, people have checking accounts with allowed overdraft, typically three month net salaries. You can just this money any day as you like, and pay it back - completely or partially - any day as you like. Interest is calculated for each day on the amount used that day; and the collateral is 'future income', predicted / expected from previous income. In the USA, credit cards have taken its place, with stricter different rules and limitations. In addition, many of the extra rules in loans were invented to take advantage of the ignorance or situation of the borrower to make even more money. For example, applying extra payments to future due payments instead of to the principal makes that principal produce more interest while the extra payments just sit around.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd327e9066516fa1c01300257f23a07", "text": "It's easiest to get your payment from the PMT function in Excel or Google Sheets. So a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 3% looks like this: The basic calculation is pretty simple. You take the annual interest rate, say 3%, divided by 12, times the existing principal balance: The idea is that borrowers would like to have a predictable payment. The earlier payments are proportionally more interest than principal than later payments are but that's because there is much more principal outstanding on month 1 than on month 200.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08ae45c25bb27e5167d571d0f6f23ba3", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. &gt; &amp;quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" &gt; Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 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*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b", "text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0728c771610b8d73857743160db5d244", "text": "This is of course using 'new math'. Namely, if I lend you $100 and you keep it for a month, I've lent you $100. In fact, if I loan you $100 for a year I've loaned you $100. But if I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning, I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning and we repeat that for a month, I've supposedly lent you $3,000. That's some interesting math for sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fc1b6f50dab7b6be9ad8ae72e29381d", "text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7f27dfffa398fe03986c118eb595efc", "text": "The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67743cb4e5d07b3227567e526be37de", "text": "\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6", "text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b681511148f7950613ac99ca0cd0f0fd", "text": "\"The \"\"pure play\"\" would be using interest rate options. http://www.cboe.com/Products/InterestRateOptionsSpecs.aspx\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a4f389f97a24cc60821597a105d24a", "text": "In the EU, you might be looking for Directive 2000/35/EC (Late Payment Directive). There was a statutory rate, 7% above the European Central Bank main rate. However, this Directive was recently repealed by Directive 2011/7/EU, which sets the statutory rate at ECB + 8%. (Under EU regulations, Directives must be turned into laws by national governments, which often takes several months. So in some EU countries the local laws may still reflect the old Directive. Also, the UK doesn't participate in the Euro, and doesn't follow the ECB rate)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e16b834629cbf3ea7dbfc65ce2a43ca4", "text": "\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "735cdacb94f03923d7db3c732b06db0f", "text": "\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bfb844efdcbda51b6ec1bb6a74c2bfb2", "text": "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.", "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": "aac84e8f8334ccd8fda74433b189625a", "text": "It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.", "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": "897210fbc785440af682a59544834ec4", "text": "Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a2f3874313270fac9674ad2cccbc5c1", "text": "Excellent Question! I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org.", "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": "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": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985", "text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842ba6cab5bdbcd099f09cd5f35e37ca", "text": "Fair, but to the first point, taking action on the climate change/stranded asset risk would disqualify the fund as a passive investment. Half the point of passive funds is to take that part of risk out of the equation - poor investment decisions - and rely on the average S&amp;P500 performance instead. I get the second point, though I question whether that point has validity until activist investors are in significant, which is a long way off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cbbc2352d0e322816d8a9623eee9235", "text": "\"&gt;those fossil free funds have been outperforming their fossilized index counterparts Why am I not surprised that over a 3 year or less time period, during the worst oil crash in at least 20 years, a fund the excludes that sector is performing better? What a misleading statement. Like saying in early 2000, \"\"oh my tech-free fund is outperforming the funds with tech stocks\"\" while ignoring the dot com bubble bursting having any effect, and implying that tech stocks will never recover.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72728dfe747564351ad248445cf8d524", "text": "There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d", "text": "&gt; So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&amp;P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "071c2132ddf7a9b2e7d73def17bc4916", "text": "Wheee . . .what fun . .these fucking bankers never learn and on the other side of the shit spectrum we have the Jolly octopus (AKA Goldman) with investors pulling out of their Rainbow unicorn fund. I am watching you octopus and if you need [help vs the Octopus](http://www.investorclaims.com/Brokerage-Firms/Goldman-Sachs.aspx)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede", "text": "I tried direct indexing the S&amp;P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db5cee669f27b0a3197bf6309cf96007", "text": "Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be6485d1e027582bd54cfed4272ca86a", "text": "\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \"\"Top Forty Funds of last year\"\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c107b901b430498b1ecacaf3deb6978", "text": "\"I have seen Dave Ramsey give extremely bad retirement advice in the past. For example, he turned fund fees into a political issue and said people who worry about mutual fund fees are [\"\"from a liberal political perspective...\"\"](https://youtu.be/zR64-Ea_r5U?t=214) They are *actually* concerned about the [compounding returns of investors ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZvu_h3x1A) and how higher fees will eat at them, rather than the amount of money that investment companies will get in fees. There's no politics involved at all, he's just a blabbering idiot. I don't see any reason to follow his advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39111f34d9ea66aec5d967ac0e8e8f75", "text": "Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the math by suggesting your wage was half of what you actually got paid.  You were paid $9/hr, not $4.50.  Was your CEO spending billions of other people's money playing martian when he could have been paying his employees instead?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2", "text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "233fefaa0be88b6404682ad147c28974", "text": "If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7d5856aacec43324d7bec156957748", "text": "Evaluating the value of currencies is always difficult because you are usually at the mercy of a central bank that can print new currency on a whim. I am trying to diversify my currency holdings but it is difficult to open foreign bank accounts without actually being in the foreign country. Any ideas here? You don't indicate which currencies you own but I would stick with your diversified portfolio of currencies and add some physical assets as a hedge against the fiat currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcb8c55265bab74bad6f31e636a935a8", "text": "The bad news is that foreign exchange is ultimately somewhat unpredictable, and analyzing the risk of these things is not particularly straightforward. I'm afraid I don't know what tools exist to analyze these, aside from suggesting you look at textbooks for financial analysis classes. The good news is that there are other people who deal with multiple currencies (international businesses, for instance) who worry about the same thing. As such, you can take a look at foreign exchange rate futures and related instruments to estimate what the market as a whole currently expects the values to do. The prices of these futures could be a useful starting point.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "6207d6f6b6c4c84fc02c0153c0fc89f6", "text": "I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51876fb7fa8f2f1b1c5fc654650a5ef4", "text": "The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "eed081ec371f4f89970eecf6adddb3f4", "text": "My original statement was answering onefingerattack's query, not strategizing for institutional investors. It's very easy for instituationals to move money across borders into and out of treasuries, and to purchase gold near spot and vault it. For a retailer like onefingerattack, getting money into bitcoin is going to be much easier than opening a foreign bank account, exchanging, and transferring funds. And my point wasn't to say that this was necessarily the best strategy because it is impossible to know. I just linked to an article about the fact that this strategy is being used by other Europeans (although, I think it's more by Greeks who worry about their Euros being nationalized and replaced with a drachma).", "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": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5", "text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3041f3b2f3e082b53a5789066773d5b", "text": "Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc", "text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "901f365eaa8747e77a314cba2f232ef2", "text": "Like most other investment decisions - it depends. Specifically in this case it depends upon your view of the FX (Foreign Exchange) market over the next few years, and how sensitive you are to losses. As you correctly note, a hedge has a cost, so it detracts from your overall return. But given that you need to repatriate the investment eventually to US Dollars, you need to be aware of the fluctuations of the dollar versus other currencies. If you believe that over your time horizon, the US dollar will be worth the same as now or less, then you should not buy the hedge. If the dollar is the same - the choice is/was obvious. If you believe the US dollar will be weaker in the future, that means that when you repatriate back to US dollars, you will purchase more dollars with your foreign currency. If on the other hand, you believe the US Dollar will get stronger, then you should certainly lock in some kind of hedge. That way, when your foreign currency would have effectively bought fewer US, you will have made money on the hedge to make up the difference. If you choose not to hedge now, you can likely hedge that exposure at any time in the future, separate from the initial investment purchase buy buying/selling the appropriate FX instrument. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413", "text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39928f12a6d24edaa1134d615395beaa", "text": "\"You sound like a savvy consumer of currencies! ;) You should put your insights and skepticism to use, and publish a \"\"currency review\"\" to help people decide which currencies are safest to save in. You could also create your own currency, and assure investors that they are entitled to exchange it for a fixed amount of a commodity at any time, for instance gasoline or wheat. &gt;I see no reason to expect bodies with shorter term interests would do a better job. Competition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e034c4331d15e3aef5d73451913e17b2", "text": "If you have significant assets, such as a large deposit, then diversification of risks such as currency risk is good practice - there are many good options, but keeping 100% of it in roubles is definitely not a good idea, nor is keeping 100% of it in a single foreign currency. Of course, it would be much more beneficial to have done it yesterday, and moments of extreme volatility generally are a bad time to make large uninformed trades, but if the deposit is sufficiently large (say, equal to annual expenses) then it would make sense to split it among different currencies and also different types of assets as well (deposit/stocks/precious metals/bonds). The rate of rouble may go up and down, but you also have to keep in mind that future events such as fluctuating oil price may risk a much deeper crisis than now, and you can look to experiences of the 1998 crisis as an example of what may happen if the situation continues to deteriorate.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "898499ec5c013cb2425c03238bfdc185", "text": "Credit card companies organize types of businesses into different categories. (They charge different types of businesses different fees.) When a business first sets up their credit card processing merchant account, they need to specify the category. Here is a list of categories that Visa uses. Grocery stores and supermarkets are category number 5411. Other types of businesses, such as the examples you provided in your question, have a different category number. American Express simply looks at the merchant category code for each of your transactions and only gives you rewards for the ones in the grocery store category. It's all automated. They likely don't have a list of every grocery store in the US, and even if they did, they would probably not provide it to the public, for proprietary reasons. If you are in doubt about whether or not a particular store is in the grocery category, you'll just have to charge it to your card and see what happens. Often, the category of transaction will be shown for each transaction on your credit card's website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c067b0a743d2aaf8960e75893f99eff0", "text": "Each company that has an account with the credit card network has to classify themselves as a particular type of business. The credit card company uses that classification to catagorize the transaction on your statement. If you buy a T-shirt at a grocery, amusement park, gas station, or resturant; the transaction will be labeled by the vendor type. Look at recent credit card statements, even if they are from different cards, to see how the stores you want to know about are classified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41bf3b218fcd4c4af9ab279348d05f96", "text": "Looks like a user-contributed list is the only good solution to this question, so I'll start one by making this answer community wiki, meaning anyone can edit it. We only aim to add major chain, not every mom&pop store (which probably don't qualify). The rewards details page looks like this: The lists are in alphabetical order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "169ec979e16f92be80dfb068deb53e2f", "text": "Contact AmEx. They are the only ones who might have a current list.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6a4936cf131fa97770c1ae307391f7ea", "text": "If his ATM card is operational and (assuming it is Visa/Mastercard), he can use it at grocery stores and get cashback. Typically, there is no charge for this service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f8fdb88265a450bd73776328c783283", "text": "Thanks for the info! It seems the consolidation option is the best; switching to the new merchant services provider and getting the discount from our POS on gift card software Can you give me a but more info about the customer loyalty/marketing info?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13205a84955e1cc9da6c599458da163d", "text": "Department store cards will appear on your credit report and is often much easier to get approved for. All my friends that have applied for a Macy's card have always been approved. If you are new to the country, department store cards are a great way to build history. Target and Nordstroms are two other department stores to look at. Target is my first suggestion since they carry every day items and will be easy to consistently put charges on the card to build credit history.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "035a423b9e88c47a1530b4882e8a95c7", "text": "I am not sure but probably it depends upon the cut the credit card company receives from the merchant. For Hotels such as dining etc. the cut could be more. Again, periodically, many merchants join with the card company to launch promotions. It could be part of such promotions. Apart from class of merchants, these points also differ on class of cards e.g a premium card will earn more rewards than a simple classic card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1eb37df8d834d9a541269b26ec8971da", "text": "\"Some features to be aware of are: How you prioritize these features will depend on your specific circumstances. For instance, if your credit score is poor, you may have to choose among cards you can get with that score, and not have much choice on other dimensions. If you frequently travel abroad, a low or zero foreign transaction fee may be important; if you never do, it probably doesn't matter. If you always pay the balance in full, interest rate is less important than it is if you carry a balance. If you frequently travel by air, an airline card may be useful to you; if you don't, you may prefer some other kind of rewards, or cash back. Cards differ along numerous dimensions, especially in the \"\"extra benefits\"\" area, which is often the most difficult area to assess, because in many cases you can't get a full description of these extra benefits until after you get the card. A lot of the choice depends on your personal preferences (e.g., whether you want airline miles, rewards points of some sort, or cash back). Lower fees and interest rates are always better, but it's up to you to decide if a higher fee of some sort outweighs the accompanying benefits (e.g., a better rewards rate). A useful site for finding good offers is NerdWallet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f2773fdba1183f8aa41ef9c1cbfd0bf", "text": "\"##Trader Joe's Trader Joe's is a German privately held chain of grocery stores based in Monrovia, California. As of May 19, 2017, Trader Joe's had 464 stores nationwide in 41 states and in Washington, D.C. By 2015, it was a competitor in \"\"fresh format\"\" grocery stores in the United States. Trader Joe's was founded by Joseph \"\"Joe\"\" Coulombe. From 1979, it was owned by Aldi Nord's German owner Theo Albrecht until his death in 2010, when ownership passed to his heirs. Aldi Nord entirely owns and operates Trader Joe's through an Albrecht family trust. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.2\"", "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": "a923077e75dfadab5adefa42b9e60bcb", "text": "\"I've been a member for over 15 years and do most of my shopping there. But it isn't a myth. While some items are singles/normal such as clothing, many are larger/bulk. The price per unit is a heck of a lot lower as a result, but the price is still higher. For example ketchup is a 1.25kg two pack while my local supermarket sells them as smaller singles. Toilet paper is twice the price of a local Target but you get almost 4 times as much. Bacon comes as a two pack of a pound each (one pack at supermarket). Milk comes as two one gallon containers. Fruit and vegetables come in containers that are typically twice the size of my local supermarket. Bleach comes in a huge box containing 3 large containers. Shrimp comes in a two pound bag - local supermarket is 1lb pound bags at their largest. Halloween candy comes in huge bags - the local supermarket has some that big, but the vast majority are a lot smaller. Bread is in two packs - local supermarket is a one pack. The rotisserie chicken is a single just like my local supermarket and is cheaper. Costco is undoubtedly value for money, but a typical family shopping list will cost more upfront (and then last longer). But not everyone can afford the membership and higher initial \"\"investment\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4149853e53d6d1519fa4d4372b8cada7", "text": "As a previous employee at Target the cashier's were all doing things wrong...you cannot buy AMEX or Visa prepaid cards with target giftcards or you get in big shit. You are also not supposed to sell giftcards for giftcards. This should all pop up automatically when the cashier rings it up...so i'm confused.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03d2a0141218f59ccc7954e37ef6ee94", "text": "We have machines in several grocery store chains that will take your coins, sort them, and give you two ways to get your money back: I've seen these many places, but, of course, I cannot say for sure if there are any near you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8f885297cfc5cb37f3668d73fd059d", "text": "Additionally, is grocery even a major profit center for Wal-Mart? It wasn't even a major feature of their stores 15+ years ago IIRC. I guess it has decent halo effects today, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't be fine treating it like a loss leader as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733a24dc9aff8589d4a617d2d8f05503", "text": "Each of those is a network. Merchants displaying their logos - participate in their network and will accept cards that bear the same logo. Most merchants participate in more than one network. Discover is mostly used in the US, while Visa, Mastercard and American Express are more widely spread in the world (Amex less, Visa and MC are much more widely spread). In addition to being widely spread in the US, Discover is accepted everywhere where UnionPay is accepted (mostly in China) and Diners Club (mostly in EMEA). Advantages/disadvantages? You'll have to compare specific cards, but if you're a traveler in the world - then Discover will probably not be as appealing as Visa or Mastercard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb0e3e99c7cda972e38413ba3620e23d", "text": "\"There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase. These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount. These fees are higher for rewards cards. (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small. To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who \"\"pay with plastic\"\" tend to spend more than people who \"\"pay with cash\"\". If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4145f2a8b7e3f573a413505cf772d3d", "text": "Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e6f8d2a7fd5e271ad038b24af47df6a", "text": "\"I can't imagine how a company that has all the proof it needs of its existence and business dealings is able to be challenged in this way. Fact is, they were doing business first. The insurance company has no claim to make. (I'm not a lawyer, my observation there is based on what's right and logical...perhaps the law disagrees and if so, that law is as crooked as the judge who thinks the request for the insurance company's business dealings off \"\"frivolous\"\"). They may have messed up. That's because the evidence looks pretty \"\"open and shut\"\". Too bad for them they're getting pushed around on the basis of \"\"I'm bigger\"\" I guess, huh? I don't see why this means they're on their own. Edit: I didn't see the part about the dillusion suit. Definitely brought it on themselves, still being harassed; and insurance company has no right to shut them or their site down.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2df7a1cf3ca314dbb9aa09b8944a2b57", "text": "I went here: Consumer Loan Law. It seems that a consumer loan is anything other than a business loan or mortgage. However, in California it seems to include a mortgage. It's a bit weird to see that a HEL can be considered a consumer loan even if it is the primary or the only loan on a property. Getting a HEL can be a great low cost way to (re)finance a property as they tend to have low or no closing costs and lower interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a176cb795735a8a2d21c2fd59138c4e8", "text": "Here's a good definition of a consumer loan: What is a Consumer Loan? As@Pete B. pointed out, there are some states (California loves to be the oddball, doesn't it?) that treat some loans in a more unconventional manner, but the gist of it is that a consumer loan is normally unsecured, meaning there's no collateral or lien associated with it. A signature loan would be a good example of a consumer loan. Many times, loans made by non-banks (finance companies that loan for consumer purchases, for instance) would be considered to be consumer loans. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5c4552d9a151aba8324f246f5b6d05e0", "text": "It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized. On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3c9107673fd5927e3e38d0ef07c60d", "text": "It was both. CDOs also contributed. Unfortunately, when the bankers kept packing up their loans they lost track of the risk as did the financial institutions offering instruments to deleverage that risk. So when the subprime borrowers began to fail the institutions started getting hit with risk that they hadn't prepared for. Flippers and home owners who used their homes as ATMs then saw their home values crash and it all fell apart. We are seeing some of this again with owners getting more HELOCs but the real concern is with car loans, credit card and student loan debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa4237b59e1cb05f8f9db405fdf2cdb9", "text": "Wait are you saying you have the opportunity to buy bonds at this rate and the company is issuing loans at this rate to consumers? Sounds like a win for the bank, a win for it's shareholders, and a win for the bondholder. (Of course, you'll probably be paying a premium for a 25% coupon bond if that's really what's you're talking about.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b016ad4e91e887d07872457741a50b2c", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e09460d1db22e0739c0c89a96007457", "text": "I'm not sure the reasoning still holds though. If you default on your student loan, your diploma doesn't get repossessed. There's a signifiant moral hazard associated with student loans. A mortgage on the other hand is around a very physical item. Though I can still banks lobbying for better rules, that would be hugely in the consumers disadvantage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1dea617c76c9c16a9eff8182e9a3d2e", "text": "This is generally wrong. For the vast majority of the time that underqualified alt-a and option-arm mortgages were being written, Fannie and Freddie were not buying, and they were never huge holders of these mortgages. Fannie and Freddie have minimum qualifications standards. However, as time went on, Fannie and Freddie did load up on the securities (not the mortgages), which were of course still problematic. But the liquidity crunch of 08 was not substantially contributed to by Fannie and Freddie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b9b09480180e3d1bd2933988607e7ea", "text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab823c39820c52a37e205e57d69d4c3d", "text": "You can explore the scenarios in which it is better to rent or to buy using this application: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ In the possibly unlikely scenario shown below, at the term of the mortgage (20 years) the tenant and the buyer have practically the same return on investment. At this point the tenant's savings would be sufficient to buy a house equivalent to the buyer's, and this would be the advisable course of action (based on the figures alone).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea", "text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "933d4d77ab71aaf0bdb5e1d198ab6f1b", "text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662244bb697ba42ca630f74cd02a7791", "text": "Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50c7e3ea42c36ece76e0b2aa28f33a4d", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cityfalcon.com/blog/investments/student-loan-debt-new-mortgage-crisis/?utm_campaign=ao_reddit) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Costs of living, especially for those attending universities in cities like New York or London, also account for a nontrivial portion of the debt. &gt; Is the student debt bubble in the United States the next mortgage crisis? &gt; One major difference between the student debt problem and the mortgage crisis is the lack of CDOs and CDSs. The thread that connected banks, governments, individuals and economies were the CDO and CDS. With a complex system of mortgage securitization and insurance against those securities, the system effectively collapsed itself. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79mt1s/student_loan_debt_the_new_mortgage_crisis_in_2018/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237528 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*: **debt**^#1 **student**^#2 **education**^#3 **economy**^#4 **borrowed**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fd042a679b503668b1e281f14f32f9", "text": "Cynical answer: Real Estate agents make money on commission from sale of houses, so their compensation is tied to the home price. Banks make money off loans, so it is in their interest to make larger loans (as long as the loan gets paid). So their is a tension at the bank between selling a larger mortgage, and ensuring that their customer can pay the mortgage. Gross income is easier to check, and the taxes at a given income are fairly predictable. And banks realized that people can change their medical and retirement deductions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d9180f70d0802c2ce787ee20f2097e", "text": "\"In a domestic setting, Letters of Credit are often used to build public works needed to support a development. So if you're bulldozing a few 3 story buildings to build a 50 story tower, the municipality will build appropriate water/sewer/gas/road infrastructure, and draw from the developer's letter of credit to fund it. The 'catch' to the developer is that these things usually aren't revokable -- once the city/town/etc starts work, the developer cannot cut-off the funding, even if the project is cancelled. A letter of credit definitely isn't a consumer financing vehicle. The closest equivalent is a \"\"line of credit\"\" tied to an asset like a home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc239a35be77409464db2aaa455acd86", "text": "You mentioned 15-20 years in your comment on mhoran_psprep's response. This is the most important factor to consider in the points vs. rate question. With a horizon that long it sounds like the points are probably a better option for you. There is a neat comparison tool at The Mortgage Professor's website that may help you build your spreadsheet or simply check the numbers you are getting.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "653107501e59e64058ee6d8681000ae3", "text": "Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.", "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": "3ec032150533346d0abdca0583130571", "text": "Let me answer with an extreme example - I own the one single share of a company, and it's worth $1M. I issue 9 more shares, and find 9 people willing to pay $1M for each share. I know find my ownership dropped by 90%, and I am now a 10% owner of a business that was valued at $1M but with an additional $9M in the bank for expansion. (Total value now $10M) Obviously, this is a simplistic view, but no simpler than the suggestion that your company would dilute its shares 90% in one transaction.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "924ec97e56ea4c56464f722c7914e103", "text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ca061d1169a2f105fa24f5d250c2d5", "text": "Any time a large order it placed for Buy, the sell side starts increasing as the demand of Buy has gone up. [Vice Versa is also true]. Once this orders gets fulfilled, the demand drops and hence the Sell price should also lower. Depending on how much was the demand / supply without your order, the price fluctuation would vary. For examply if before your order, for this particular share the normal volume is around 100's of shares then you order would spike things up quite a bit. However if for other share the normal volume is around 100000's then your order would not have much impact.", "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": "7da0708a8b135ad64f3f50ce0300ce98", "text": "When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company. You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year. It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth. If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up. If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down. You have no control over that. If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares. If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything. But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less. So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were. You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes. But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself. Buying shares is a gamble. All you can do is decide what to gamble on.", "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": "7dc3912bdb7e7a71ae405133330accb6", "text": "\"Some companies issue multiple classes of shares. Each share may have different ratios applied to ownership rights and voting rights. Some shares classes are not traded on any exchange at all. Some share classes have limited or no voting rights. Voting rights ratios are not used when calculating market cap but the market typically puts a premium on shares with voting rights. Total market cap must include ALL classes of shares, listed or not, weighted according to thee ratios involved in the company's ownership structure. Some are 1:1, but in the case of Berkshire Hathaway, Class B shares are set at an ownership level of 1/1500 of the Class A shares. In terms of Alphabet Inc, the following classes of shares exist as at 4 Dec 2015: When determining market cap, you should also be mindful of other classes of securities issued by the company, such as convertible debt instruments and stock options. This is usually referred to as \"\"Fully Diluted\"\" assuming all such instruments are converted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63", "text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c21c7c12dfb0853ecc3003ed4544234", "text": "Alot of these answers have focused on the dilution aspect, but from a purely legal aspect, there are usually corporate bylaws that spell out what kind of vote and percentage of votes is needed to take this type of action. If all other holders of stock voted to do this, so 90% for, and you didn't, so 10% against, it's still legal if that vote meets the threshold for taking the action. As an example of this, I known of a startup where employees got $0/share for their vested shares when the company was sold because the voting stock holders agreed to it. Effectively the purchase amount was just enough to cover debts and preferred stock.", "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": "6a54e644b5544df0d9b26eb811dd81af", "text": "You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "408b55cf5d99100c61738355162a6405", "text": "You have just answered your question in the last sentence of your question: More volume just means more people are interested in the stock...i.e supply and demand are matched well. If the stock is illiquid there is more chance of the spread and slippage being larger. Even if the spread is small to start with, once a trade has been transacted, if no new buyers and sellers enter the market near the last transacted price, then you could get a large spread occurring between the bid and ask prices. Here is an example, MDG has a 50 day moving average volume of only 1200 share traded per day (obviously it does not trade every day). As you can see there is already an 86% spread from the bid price. If a new bid price is entered to match and take out the offer price at $0.039, then this spread would instantly increase to 614% from the bid price.", "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": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b", "text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).", "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": "c7bdf878050a0ce633c13691f39664af", "text": "Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.", "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": "b55537ea38f39ad5dca50ded39529760", "text": "Its like anything else, you need to study and learn more about investing in general and the stocks you are looking at buying or selling. Magazines are a good start -- also check out the books recommended in another question. If you're looking at buying a stock for the mid/long term, look at things like this: Selling is more complicated and more frequently screwed up:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208", "text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "a4afa8c2f6d30d437aba51b7bd25b53b", "text": "Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.", "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": "946f3ce23e6c568eac2af2495c403eae", "text": "There's only one real list that states what people think stock prices should be, and that's the stocks order book. That lists the prices at which stock owners are willing to buy stocks now, and the price that buyers are willing to pay. A secondary measure is the corresponding options price. Anything else is just an opinion and not backed by money.", "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": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8", "text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3", "text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4000a40d44e3fe823985daf10c1d0a8", "text": "Stock valuation is a really sticky business, although they are ways to value it, it is somewhat subjective(expectations are calculated). But it will be at premium most likely, can't tell how much without any numbers.(wouldn't be able to tell with the numbers as well since i do not have any knowledge in the sector)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "076724614177d21d3c98defd53abe1b4", "text": "REIT's are a different beast than your normal corporate stock (such as $AAPL). Here is a good article to get you started. From there you can do some more research into what you think you will need to truly evaluate an REIT. How To Assess A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Excerpt: When evaluating REITs, you will get a clearer picture by looking at funds from operations (FFO) rather than looking at net income. If you are seriously considering the investment, try to calculate adjusted funds from operations (AFFO), which deducts the likely expenditures necessary to maintain the real estate portfolio. AFFO is also a good measure of the REIT's dividend-paying capacity. Finally, the ratio price-to-AFFO and the AFFO yield (AFFO/price) are tools for analyzing an REIT: look for a reasonable multiple combined with good prospects for growth in the underlying AFFO. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80", "text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ffd7588e47bdcfbf842058ec577af8f", "text": "\"Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters? Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio. The straightforward way to \"\"see\"\" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six \"\"randomly\"\" selected ones): library(quantmod) library(fPortfolio) library(PerformanceAnalytics) getSymbols(c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"frontier.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) plot(frontier, which = \"\"all\"\") dev.off() minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") Portfolio Weights: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Covariance Risk Budgets: STZ RAI AMZN MSFT TWX RHT 0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051 Target Returns and Risks: mean Cov CVaR VaR 0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360 https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio. It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit. Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes: getSymbols(c(\"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\"), from = \"\"2012-06-01\"\", to = \"\"2017-06-01\"\") returns &lt;- NULL tickerlist &lt;- c(\"\"STZ\"\", \"\"RAI\"\", \"\"AMZN\"\", \"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"TWX\"\", \"\"RHT\"\", \"\"GLD\"\", \"\"SLV\"\") for (ticker in tickerlist){ returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker))))) } colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns) frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns) png(\"\"weights.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) weightsPlot(frontier) dev.off() # Optimal weights out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = \"\"LongOnly\"\") wghts &lt;- getWeights(out) portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3] colnames(portret1) &lt;- \"\"Optimal portfolio\"\" # Equal weights wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8) portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3] colnames(portret2) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_both.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2)) chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.06, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture. The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio. You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN). https://imgur.com/rXPbXau We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable. --- Everything below here is false, but illustrative. So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the time series and held it to the end. We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility. library(fOptions) monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, \"\"months\"\")] T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1) for (t in 1:60) { s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t]) optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = \"\"c\"\", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol) optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price } monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc) colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(\"\"MSFT\"\", \"\"MSFTCall50\"\") MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2]) colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- \"\"MSFTCall50rets\"\" returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets) wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9) portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3] colnames(portret3) &lt;- \"\"Equal weights derivative portfolio\"\" png(\"\"performance_deriv.png\"\", width = 800, height = 600) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5)) chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = \"\"Drawdown\"\", ylim = c(-0.09, 0)) dev.off() https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call. Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) The imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701", "text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c8b750f6c21453c59ba60da65eed80", "text": "\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8dac56cfe9dc085fb7bd971b8476dfcb", "text": "There is no ETF that closely tracks oil or gasoline. This is because all existing oil and gasoline ETFs hold futures contracts or other derivatives. Storing the oil and gasoline would be prohibitively costly. Futures contracts are prone to contango and backwardation, sometimes resulting in large deviations from the price of the physical commodity. Contrast oil ETFs with metal ETFs, which track nicely. EDIT: See this article about contango. The UNG chart is particularly ugly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "682165f77ed71998649642d3aa00e5ba", "text": "Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b66b61ad11cadb30ca1d30f219290326", "text": "UNG United States Natural Gas Fund Natural Gas USO United States Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UGA United States Gasoline Fund Gasoline DBO PowerShares DB Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UHN United States Heating Oil Fund Heating Oil I believe these are as close as you'd get. I'd avoid the double return flavors as they do not track well at all. Update - I understand James' issue. An unmanaged single commodity ETF (for which it's impractical to take delivery and store) is always going to lag the spot price rise over time. And therefore, the claims of the ETF issuer aside, these products will almost certain fail over time. As shown above, When my underlying asset rises 50%, and I see 24% return, I'm not happy. Gold doesn't have this effect as the ETF GLD just buys gold, you can't really do that with oil.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "37a1e67549592b0ff3bda0dcc97552a7", "text": "I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3546d674628d675d54ccf4a127512ef0", "text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c03d7d3c2bfc374ae93d7b90d38fdd3", "text": "most def. When I have an algorithmic trading strategy I want to spitball, or some question about how to exploit netback pricing inefficiency between West Texas Intermediate and Brent prices based on some sort of shipping rate change, I'd like to post here. When I want a new job, I'll go to r/financialcareers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afdd5a936be2a9b0e538321fa88b1cd4", "text": "There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ce1cee0983831c85823c1166a154b4e", "text": "\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ffe186c7354d96182c0cee97da4d0b", "text": "\"As of right now it looks like you can't issue an ETF at least because the underlying \"\"commodity\"\" isn't regulated. (See Winkelvoss ETF). I suspect you would run into this problem with any 1940 act fund (mutual fund), but it's more a situation of \"\"not approved\"\" rather than illegal, so an MLP hedge fund structure would probably be fine. And some googling finds Iterative Instinct Management's Storj SPV.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61ae5201d687b57dd6c41eb223c5a1d5", "text": "\"As others have alluded to but haven't said due to the lack of reputation points to spare, you can take advantage of oil prices by leveraging up and using as much credit and margin as the banks and brokerages (respectively) will lend you. People assume that the correct answer on this forum has to masquerade as conservative financial advice, and this is not advice nor conservative. Futures contracts are readily available, but they are expensive to obtain (like a minimum entry of $4,450). But if this expense is no such object to you then you can then obtain this contract which is actually worth 20x that and experience the price appreciation and depreciation of the whole contract. The concept is similar to a downpayment on a mortgage. You assume \"\"rock bottom\"\" oil prices, but fortunately for you, futures contracts will allow you to quickly change your bets from future price appreciation and allow you to speculate on future price depreciation. So although the union workers will be protesting full time after the drilling company lays them off, you will still be getting wealthier. Long Options. These are the best. The difference with options, amongst other speculation products, is that options require the least amount of capital risk for the greatest reward. With futures, or with trading shares of an ETF (especially on margin), you have to put up a lot of capital, and if the market does not go your desired direction, then will lose a lot. And on margin products you can lose more than you put in. Being long options does not come with these dilemmas. A long march 2015 call option on USO ETF can currently be bought for less than $200 of actual cash (ie. the trading quote will be less than $2.00, but this will cost you less than $200), and will be worth $1000 on a very modest rebound in prices. The most you can lose is the $200 for the contract. Compared to $4450 on the futures, or $100,000 (that you don't have) in the futures market if oil really moves against you, or compared to whatever large amount of cash needed to actually buy shares of an ETF needed to make any decent return. These are the most lucrative (and fun and exhilarating and ) ways to take advantage of rock bottom oil prices, as an individual.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b7ccc105a31477357e8d060940712c", "text": "This ETFchannel.com page shows which ETFs hold Wells Fargo and you can search other stocks the get the same information on that site. This the same information for Google This even tells you what percentage of an ETF is a particular stock. Be warned that this site is not entirely free. You will be limited to 6 pages in 6 hours unless you pay for a subscription. Additionally ETFdb.com offers a similar tool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07c5b21311bbfa1feacf92e1ced1248f", "text": "While we're not supposed to make direct recommendations, and I am in no way advising anything, USO an ETF that buys light sweet crude oil futures with the intention of mirroring the price movements of oil.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052", "text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7e2fad44b5aaa612308ce54e0a84d92", "text": "Well, the largest, in terms of both volume and unfortunately, contact size is the options on the S&P futures index. It's based on one contract which is $250 times the current S&P index, or just over $300K current value. This does not make for too cheap an option cost, but it's definitely the largest as you requested. For the average Joe, or Ray, in this case, the most popular ETFs are SPY and DIA for the S&P and Dow Jones, respectively. These are reasonably sized so their options are within range of your goal. See the SPY options at Yahoo. Then flip over to the DIA options. (SPY reflects 1/10 the S&P so an option contract, on 100 SPY shares is effectively on 10 times the S&P index or 1/25 the futures option pricing.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c56f86c963da218d415cba0fa5b3cab", "text": "That doesn't change anything. You're still judging an investment off a 5 year period which includes a massive event which destroyed oil stocks. My previous analogy still applies, if you held 2 portfolios, one with tech stocks and one without for the 5 year period that includes the tech crash in the early 2000s, of course the non tech one would outperform the tech one. XLE, an energy etf, dropped 30% at the end of that period. That has an outsized influence on your article there.", "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": "ff7f871a450e24d96f85664029365357", "text": "Investopedia has one and so does marketwatch I've always used marketwatch, and I have a few current competitions going on if you want me to send the link They recently remodeled the website so it works on mobile and not as well on desktop Don't know anything about the investopedia one though", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "675a70aadcb10c31e3cc28eca8b61c0c", "text": "Brokers will have transaction fees in addition to the find management fees, but they should be very transparent. Brokering is a very competitive business. Any broker that added hidden fees to their transactions would lose customers very quickly to other brokers than can offer the same services. Hedge funds are a very different animal, with less regulation, less transparency, and less competition. Their fees are tolerated because the leveraged returns are usually much higher. When times are bad, though, those fees might drive investors elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b7c8115416ff9f0bb1c0fe23627ab8ab", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4a5b3c153b0ee7c0d8c166d89883c0", "text": "\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373", "text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1", "text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd8c0400df705973b49bbd16a1792a82", "text": "Usually the ADR fee comes out of dividend payments and is modest. The ADR that I am most familiar with (Vodafone - VOD) pays dividends twice a year and deducts either $0.02 or $0.01 per share. IMO, the ADR fee is not really a material factor. ADRs do have some disadvantages though:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61", "text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071df86f32434f8df1a73e00cec448e1", "text": "It really depends on the hedge fund, my hedge fund gives back all rebates for routes that are public knowledge back to the client. Also the rebate is based on the route, not the stock, so it may not offset all expenses on each ETFs. Most of the BATS IEX and other routes have public websites where you can get the infos on what are the rebates for each.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9dbe7f5f0b136736a208fcb32b3c391", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43c7802718feab88d1054220636e2c0d", "text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca2dd5f266d4df81c365b3c9d5171ced", "text": "Many brokers offer a selection of ETFs with no transaction costs. TD Ameritrade and Schwab both have good offerings. Going this route will maximize diversification while minimizing friction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a561e2ff079274876b663253e7d2d371", "text": "\"You're correct that the trading costs would be covered by the expense ratio. Just to be clear here, the expense ratio is static and doesn't change very often. It's set in such a way that the fund manager *expects* it to cover *all* of their operational costs. It's not some sort of slider that they move around with their costs. I'm not familiar with any ETF providers doing agreements which cover rent and equipment (hedge funds do - see \"\"hedge fund hotels\"\"). ETF providers do routinely enter into agreements with larger institutions that cover stuff like marketing. PowerShares, for a while, outsourced all of the management of the Qs to BNY and was responsible solely for marketing it themselves.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66", "text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b", "text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.", "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": "683686c0406e2aa612ec99dabbea69f6", "text": "\"As far as I understand, OP seems to be literally asking: \"\"why, regarding the various contracts on various exchanges (CBE, etc), is it that in some cases they are 'cash settled' and in some 'physically settled' -?\"\" The answer is only that \"\"the exchange in question happens to offer it that way.\"\" Note that it's utterly commonplace for contracts to be settled out physically, and happens in the billions as a daily matter. Conversely zillions in \"\"cash settled\"\" contracts play out each day. Both are totally commonplace. Different businesses or entities or traders would use the two \"\"varieties\"\" for sundry reasons. The different exchanges offer the different varieties, ultimately I guess because they happen to think that niche will be profitable. There's no \"\"galactic council\"\" or something that enforces which mode of settlement is available on a given offering - ! Recall that \"\"a given futures contracts market\"\" is nothing more than a product offered by a certain exchange company (just like Burger King sells different products). I believe in another aspect of the question, OP is asking basically: \"\"Why is there not, a futures contract, of the mini or micro variety for extremely small amounts, of currency futures, which, is 'physically' settled rather than cash settled ..?\"\" If that's the question the answer is just \"\"whatever, nobody's done it yet\"\". (Or, it may well exist. But it seems extremely unlikely? \"\"physically\"\" settled currencies futures are for entities operating in the zillions.) Sorry if the question was misunderstood.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2bd492a29d94dd3739c66c7cf4cf0976", "text": "\"With Forex trading - physical currency is not involved. You're playing with the live exchange rates, and it is not designed for purchasing/selling physical currency. Most Forex trading is based on leveraging, thus you're not only buying money that you're not going to physically receive - you're also paying with money that you do not physically have. The \"\"investment\"\" is in fact a speculation, and is akin to gambling, which, if I remember correctly, is strictly forbidden under the Islam rules. That said, the positions you have - are yours, and technically you can demand the physical currency to be delivered to you. No broker will allow online trading on these conditions, though, similarly to the stocks - almost no broker allows using physical certificates for stocks trading anymore.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e3ffaf0a9e4b4df9c8dc75f87d57b1b", "text": "You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f3e70ed5e0c4430e5d7b145efd7b51c", "text": "The vast majority of retail Forex brokers are market makers, rather than ECNs. With that said, the one that fits your description mostly closely is Interactive Brokers, is US-based, and well-respected. They have a good amount of exoitcs available. Many ECNs don't carry these because of the mere fact that they make money on transactions, versus market makers who make money on transactions and even more on your losses. So, if the business model is to make money only on transactions, and they are as rarely traded as exotics are, there's no money to be made.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddc38e15fc5715dc19993ad0cc132abc", "text": "This would depend on what transfer methods your Forex broker allows. Most will allow you to have a check or wire transfer sent...best thing would be to call/email your broker and ask how to get the money into your account. Keep in mind, many brokers will force you to withdraw using the same funding method you used to deposit, up to the amount of the deposit. For example, if I fund my Forex account with $500 on a credit card and make $500 profit, I now have $1,000 sitting in my Forex account. The broker will force me to withdraw $500 as a credit to my credit card before allowing me to use another withdrawal method. This is an anti-money laundering precaution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "212b89c0dfad33c644815e8141a0949d", "text": "With your experience, I think you'd agree that trading over a standardized, regulated exchange is much more practical with the amount of capital you plan to trade with. That said, I'd highly advise you to consider FX futures at CME, cause spot forex at the bucket shops will give you a ton of avoidable operational risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2835b6174f6b3e73ae2a2cdda2658eb", "text": "Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef274fde8ff9993d7e6a2b343d34d339", "text": "\"You can find lots of answers to this question by googling. I found at least five pages about this in 30 seconds. Most of these pages seem to say that if you must convert cash, converting it in the destination country is probably better, because you are essentially buying a product (in this case, dollars), and it will cheaper where the supply is greater. There are more dollars in the USA than there are in Portugal, so you may be able to get them cheaper there. (Some of those pages mention caveats if you're trying to exchange some little-known currency, which people might not accept, but this isn't an issue if you're converting euros.) Some of those pages specifically recommend against airport currency exchanges; since they have a \"\"captive audience\"\" of people who want to convert money right away, they face less competition and may offer worse rates. Of course, the downside of doing the exchange in the USA is that you'll be less familiar with where to do it. I did find some people saying that, for this reason, it's better to do it in your own country where you can shop around at leisure to find the best rate. That said, if you take your time shopping around, shifts in the underlying exchange rate in the interim could erase any savings you find. It's worth noting, though, that the main message from all these pages is the same: don't exchange cash at all if you can possibly avoid it. Use a credit card or ATM card to do the exchange. The exchange rate is usually better, and you also avoid the risks associated with carrying cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23", "text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06e4704418d257227d647692a04fec2e", "text": "If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.", "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": "3c34a78467249df07b75663f47cedef8", "text": "Crazy idea but... on the offchance your friend is near one of Europe's few bitcoin ATM's ... buy some bitcoin, transfer them to your friend, and they can presumably cash them in at the ATM. I've no idea how much bid-offer spreads will eat into the transfer or whether you can tolerate bitcoin volatility though. Unless there are money laundering regulations that mean anyone wanting to use one of these ATM's has to agree some ID checks that your friend can't satisfy (I don't actually know much about bitcoin at all). If not a bitcoin ATM, maybe there are other ways your friend can convert bitcoin value to something more useful (bitcoin to mobile-phone top-ups seem to be possible, for example).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94946e8ad98c7dee3b7fafa8b1ee8f00", "text": "Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edb1f705ad85940e241269d785bb0f6b", "text": "Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cfa763eb7329a1cea601b1c91dda9c7", "text": "\"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9baaf39656cae04a080059718b623e3a", "text": "Actually, yes. Two parties can write a contract and specify how money will change hands, it's called a swap. It's not unusual to write a contract that mimics an existing financial instrument. However, there are disadvantages to both sides to trading a swap rather than a more standard, liquid instrument, so usually it won't happen unless there's an excellent reason.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cdf88af3f4a06fb4676cd304af9accb7", "text": "Exec Insiders have to file with the SEC and some sites like secform4.com track it. But many insiders have selling programs where the sell the same amount every month or quarter so you would have to do your homework to determine if there are real signals in the activity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7f5359f913a36b856fe5b024a82193c", "text": "SEC Form 3 and SEC Form 4 are filed when insiders make share/derivatives acquisitions, transfers, sells and buys There is a time limit AFTER the action where they can be filed, such as 12 business days, so this can be a substantial amount of time after the effect on the market, depending on your strategy. You can aggregate these forms from SEC sources or from third party websites and services. In some cases, types of insider trading are permissible at certain intervals, so if you learn about when certain shares become unlocked, you can try to predict what insider actions will be and share price movements around those times.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "079146be252b00916828b6842bbca0da", "text": "A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4547c62620c5e2a6fb9f620f2a1210cc", "text": "This would be a nice Raspberry Pi project for Mathematica, which comes bundled free on the Raspbian OS. You can program it up and leave it running. It's not expensive and doesn't use much power. A program to monitor stock prices or volume could be written as simply as :- This checks the volume of trades of Oct 2014 US crude oil futures every 30 seconds and sends an email if the volume jumps by more than 100. The financial data in this example is curated from Yahoo. If specific data is not available or not updated frequently enough, if you can find an alternative online data source it's usually possible read the data in. For example, this is apparently real-time data :- {Crude Oil, 92.79, -0.67, -0.71%} After leaving the above program running while writing this the volume of trades has risen like so :- Edit I just set this running on a Raspberry Pi. I had to use gmail for the email setup as described in this post: Configuring Mathematica to send email from a notebook. Anyway, it's working. Hope I don't get inundated with emails. ;-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "193bc946d8e72c744a5e6362450cf56c", "text": "\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \"\"Course of Sale\"\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" and look at the volume. \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03fd2a93ac59c369f93c5f51ae09587", "text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3", "text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4932025d533dcdd30c72fa9eed87af", "text": "Of course. The fact that it's such a generic concern should be taken for granted - that's why I think the article focuses on it too much. Everybody knows that losing a lot of executives is bad news, even if there was no line in the 10-K at all. So I'd have preferred to see less about that and more information on what it could mean for this company specifically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "341d6a2a406972d0c1356d6762328b87", "text": "\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"", "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": "43bdbf79a13a6c8e8d9b9fc4fface6b0", "text": "Bloomberg is really just a huge database. You can look up just about anything you need to know. Launchpad is much better than the old NW market monitors. The Excel API is useful. If it wasn't where all my brokers are I would consider something different like Eikon. It has some limitations but it's a useful system and parts of my job would be a pain without it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "867938426d19347fb40cde94e4d03fc8", "text": "Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.", "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": "bb2125f617de0d2ef9c2669b5daee3e3", "text": "\"There are a number of ways to measure such things and they are generally called \"\"sentiment indicators\"\". The ones that I have seen \"\"work\"\", in the sense that they show relatively high readings near market tops and relatively low readings near market bottoms. The problem is that there are no thresholds that work consistently. For example, at one market top a sentiment indicator may read 62. At the next market top that same indicator might read 55. So what threshold do you use next time? Maybe the top will come at 53, or maybe it will not come until 65. There was a time when I could have listed examples for you with the names of the indicators and what they signaled and when. But I gave up on such things years ago after seeing such wide variation. I have been at this a long time (30+ years), and I have not found anything that works as well as we would like at identifying a top in real time. The best I have found (although it does give false signals) is a drop in price coupled with a bearish divergence in breadth. The latter is described in \"\"Stan Weinstein's Secrets For Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets\"\". Market bottoms are a little less difficult to identify in real time. One thing I would suggest if you think that there is some way to get a significant edge in investing, is to look at the results of Mark Hulbert's monitoring of newsletters. Virtually all of them rise and fall with the market and almost none are able to beat buy and hold of the Wilshire 5000 over the long term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83", "text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41ae722fcce68d01edfb7eaddcc8744f", "text": "Investment banks will put out various reports and collect revenues from that along with their banking activity. I don't read them or care to read them myself. If banks can make money from something, they will likely do it, especially if it is legal. To take the Tesla stock question for a moment: Aren't you ruling out that yesterday was the day that Tesla was included in the Nasdaq 100 and thus there may be some people today exiting because they tried to cash in on the index funds having to buy the stock and bid it up in a sense? Or as @littleadv points out there could be those tracking the stocks not in the index that would have been forced to sell for another idea here. The Goldman note is a possible explanation but there could well be more factors in play here such as automated trading systems that seek to take advantage of what could be perceived as arbitrage opportunities. There can be quick judgments made on things which may or may not be true in the end. After all, who knows exactly what is causing the sell-off. Is it a bunch of stop orders being triggered? Is it people actually putting in sell order manually? Is it something else? There are lots of questions here where I'm not sure how well one can assign responsibility here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93c269eb0810f9a10c3ac6a7948633d1", "text": "\"any major brokerage firm will have something like this. more speculative rumors will typically not make their way to the \"\"news\"\" there, though; the news feeds are from established wires, who don't report on those things until confirmed.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "395657af29d1c2a678d29b213625d460", "text": "Enjoy the free trades as long as they last, and take advantage of it since this is no longer functionally a tax on your potential profits. On a side note, RobinHood and others in the past have roped customers in with low-to-zero fee trades before changing the business paradigm completely or ceasing operations. All brokers could be charging LESS fees than they do, but they get charged fees by the exchanges, and will eventually pass this down to the customer in some way or go bankrupt.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eb3b91a7d2eadc3537f0d83721756f61", "text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4192adc2bae1410a5825b4a8f0fa431a", "text": "In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915ee91396f3b08a0d4af728c8f3d5da", "text": "\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26b9b598edbb51924bfdd3c6021e4650", "text": "\"If you are buying and selling mutual funds in the same family of funds (e.g. Vanguard), then you can set up an on-line account on the Vanguard website (www.vanguard.com) and it is easy: Vanguard offers a \"\"Transaction\"\" service that allows you to sell shares of VFINX, say, and buy shares of VBTLX, say, from the proceeds of the sale all in one swell foop. But, if you are holding the VFINX shares through your on-line account with, say, eTrade, then it depends on what services eTrade provides to you. Will it allow doing all that in one transaction, or will it wait for the cash to come from Vanguard, and then send the money back to Vanguard to invest in VBTLX? In any case, selling VFINX shares and investing the proceeds in PRWCX shares, say, cannot be done on the Vanguard site only; Vanguard will send the proceeds of the sale of the VFINX shares only to your bank account, not anywhere else. You then need to tell T. Rowe Price (where you presumably have an account already) that you want to invest $X in PRWCX shares and to withdraw the cash from your bank account. If you are doing it all through eTrade, then the money from the sale of VFINX goes from Vanguard to eTrade (into something called a sweep account, or maybe your cash account at eTrade) and you invest it in PRWCX after appropriate delays in receiving the money from Vanguard into eTrade, etc. If your cash account (bank or eTrade) has enough of a balance, you could sell VFINX and buy PRWCX on the same day. where the purchase is made from the money in the cash account and replaced a few days later by the proceeds from Vanguard. Bouncing of checks (or inability to act on a hot tip to invest in something) in the interim is your problem; not the bank's or eTrade's.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7af4f32798568d7e60f0dbc247e02a37", "text": "The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563", "text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca79662e35a8967e8928ef6b4e487cd4", "text": "yes, you are double counting. Your profit is between ($7.25 and $8) OR ($7.75 and $8.50). in other words, you bought the stock at $7.75 and sold at $8.00 and made $0.50 on top. Profit = $8.00-$7.75+$0.50 (of course all this assumes that the stock is at or above $8.00 when the option expires. If it's below, then your profit = market price - $7.75 + $0.50 by the way the statement won't call me away until the stock reaches $8.50 is wrong. They already paid $0.50 for the right to buy the stock at $8.00. If the stock is $8.01 on the day of expiration your options will be executed(automatically i believe).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3cd3ed069075fd5d61b92de73b50627", "text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e", "text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7", "text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "918e6778d512aaca7c4e49d5715759e1", "text": "Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above. If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09f047ba79c88ff42831678755df779d", "text": "I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "35d0603711e7c4e1070df7eb7293ba24", "text": "\"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life. The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it. It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career. It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound. (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of \"\"investing\"\" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first. Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government. All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match. This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period. No investment you make on your own will ever match that. Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k. (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own. You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k. The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much \"\"walled off\"\" from your day-to-day financial life. Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties. You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note: Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into. Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested. You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments. How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself. Here is a good starting point. If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8542f403ccc447be8bc5d2ba558420a2", "text": "First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f1640e23ad8d51220d1245790777b31", "text": "First, congratulations on even thinking about investing while you are still young! Before you start investing, I'd suggest you pay off your cc balance if you have any. The logic is simple: if you invest and make say 8% in the market but keep paying 14% on your cc balance, you aren't really saving. Have a good supply of emergency fund that is liquid (high yielding savings bank like a credit union. I can recommend Alliant). Start small with investing. Educate yourself on the markets before getting in. Ignorance can be expensive. Learn about IRA (opening an IRA and investing in the markets have (good)tax implications. I didn't do this when I was young and I regret that now) Learn what is 'wash sales' and 'tax loss harvesting' before putting money in the market. Don't start out by investing in individual stocks. Learn about indexing. What I've give you are pointers. Google (shameless plug: you can read my blog, where I do touch upon most of these topics) for the terms I've mentioned. That'll steer you in the right direction. Good luck and stay prosperous!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f71d19e6c9d2beac1ed6871b68dc4618", "text": "Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cf08f2e1f80a9be0d2a44020501f00", "text": "Warren Buffett answered this question very well at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. He said that it was important to read everything you can about investing. What you will find is that you will have a number of competing ideas in your head. You will need to think these through and find the best way to solve them that fits you. You will mostly learn how to invest through good examples. There are fewer good examples out there than you might think, given how many books there are and how many people get paid to give advice in this area. If you want to see how professional investors actually think about specific investments, over a thousand investment examples can be found at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, just login as a guest. The site is run by Joel Greenblatt (you would benefit from reading his books also), and it will give you a sense of the work that investors put into their research. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aa50063f3f9ec9137401eee02976443", "text": "\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5f6ab42ec27749661579ad1362da721", "text": "I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49183a72c0b15726b887ab56f8c064b5", "text": "\"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "979c95a7d82d2ff23aa9bbc97332178e", "text": "If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad3cf054c9e8adab894e9d6b4ee3ea2f", "text": "Adding to the very good advises above - Concentrate on costs related to investment activity. Note all expenses and costs that you pay. Keep it low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "becdcfc45a8504a311011b12d5987a2d", "text": "When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394e8db16539286dcd7b3a351f08a4af", "text": "Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b272698e1679609d91d03ae6740f5359", "text": "I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "99ec4e9ad2c34404edec3c8e786cf33b", "text": "There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3542140ac5e9dea0cfc935e2ec36c743", "text": "Where is the money coming from? If you already have the money (inheritance, gifts or similar) sitting in your account, you can just buy e.g. index funds from Vanguard, Robinhood or other low-cost brokerages. But first you should estimate how much money you need for your studies - it is a bit of a gamble to invest money that you'll need to withdraw in a few years time. Even though the average return may be quite high (12% sounds like an overestimate, more commonly quoted figure is 7%), over short timespans your stocks will go up and down randomly. Once you actually have a job and have income from it, then the 401k and IRA and similar retirement accounts start to make sense. There is no need to have all your savings in the same account, so you can start saving now already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e", "text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770", "text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2234ad152a94b06edf2086f30592fe80", "text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.", "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": "ff00d276dc2faab32131924447924ce4", "text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70", "text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e1d0b430b37edba8ebb7bd4beea39ae", "text": "First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0ee72e0f45538a89c714aff65edec8b", "text": "James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68c2ed7fd4fb4f18c56d58438d284b64", "text": "Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1d7295c043ae09e650db137040a74ed", "text": "How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds). Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eecd86f6b715a52cd18cb0f621378177", "text": "It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790", "text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "052087c34f7b586e9f89059e1a3ec865", "text": "Source Rule 41 of the AIM Rules sets out the procedure for delisting. In summary, a company that wishes to cancel the right of any of its trading securities must: The notification to the Exchange should be made by the company’s nominated adviser and should be given at least 20 business days prior to the intended cancellation date (the 20 business days’ notice requirement is a minimum). Any cancellation of a company’s securities on AIM will be conditional upon seeking shareholder approval in general meeting of not less than 75% of votes cast by its shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) at the meeting. The notification to shareholders should set out the preferred date of cancellation, the reasons for seeking the cancellation (for example annual fees to the Exchange, the cost of maintaining a nominated adviser and broker, professional costs, corporate governance compliance, inability to access funds on the market), a description of how shareholders will be able to effect transactions in the AIM securities once they have been cancelled and any other matters relevant to shareholders reaching an informed decision upon the issue of the cancellation. Cancellation will not take effect until at least 5 business days after the shareholder approval is obtained and a dealing notice has been issued by the Exchange. It should be noted that there are circumstances where the Exchange may agree that shareholder consent is not required for the cancellation of admission of a company’s shares, for example (i) where comparable dealing facilities on an EU regulated market or AIM designated market are put in place to enable shareholders to trade their AIM securities in the future or (ii) where, pursuant to a takeover which has become wholly unconditional, an offeror has received valid acceptances in excess of 75% of each class of AIM securities. The company’s Nominated Adviser will liaise with the Exchange to secure a dispensation if relevant. So you should receive information from the company regarding the due process informing you about your options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32feefcea4d58b75470f821ea0aaa317", "text": "You would still be the legal owner of the shares, so you would almost certainly need to transfer them to a broker than supports the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (which allows you to trade on the Shanghai exchange). In order to delist they would need to go through a process which would include enabling shareholders to continue to access their holdings.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "95ed38e69290471c4ff58513f465c7b1", "text": "\"Any shares you buy when a company is listed on one market will remain yours if the company moves to another market. Markets and exchanges like AIM are just venues for dealing in shares - indeed you can deal in those shares anywhere else that will allow you as well as on the AIM. The benefit of being listed in a market is that trade in the shares will be more \"\"liquid\"\" - there's more likely to be people who want to buy and sell them at any given time. The bigger concern would be what happens if the company does badly and drops out of the AIM entirely. You'd still be able to sell your shares to any willing buyer, but finding that buyer might get harder.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a1dc1faedb99d0afe67c678d523509", "text": "Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down. Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes 1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings; So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap. If you have accounted for the above, consider ; 2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary. If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca19675b030e68b3aa2c000b08464550", "text": "I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bab22f69e6faf8339b42cea2dd528cea", "text": "When a delisting happens, the primary process involves, the firm or the entity, trying to buy everyone out so that they can take the firm private by delisting from the stock exchanges. As the firm wants to buy everyone out, the current owners of the equity have the upper hand. They wouldn't want to sell if they believe the firm has a brighter future. So to compensate the existing holders, the buyer needs to compensate the current holders of any future loss, so they pay a premium to buy them out. Hence the prices offered will be more than the current existing price. And in anticipation of a premium the stocks price rises on this speculation. The other scenario is if the current holder(s) decide no to sell their holdings and are small in number, dependent on exchange regulations, and the buyer manages to de-list the stock, the holders might loose out i.e. they have to find another buyer who wants to buy which becomes difficult as the liquidity for the stock is very minimal. if any stock is DE-listed and then we can not trade on it, In India if the promoters capital is more than 90%, he can get the stock de-listed. There is a process, he has to make an open offer at specified price to minority shareholders. The minority shareholder can refuse to sell. Once the stock is de-listed, it means it cannot be traded on a given exchange. However you can still sell / buy by directly finding a buyer / seller and it's difficult compared to a listed stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62dde17ebd37c396d6b19d81e0eb7530", "text": "One more scenario is when the company already has maturing debt. e.g Company took out a debt of 2 billion in 2010 and is maturing 2016. It has paid back say 500 million but has to pay back the debtors the remaining 1.5 billion. It will again go to the debt markets to fund this 1.5 billion maybe at better terms than the 2010 issue based on market conditions and its business. The debt is to keep the business running or grow it. The people issuing debt will do complete research before issuing the debt. It can always sell stock but that results in dilution and affects shareholders. Debt also affects shareholders but when interest rates are lower, companies tend to go to debt markets. Although sometimes they can just do a secondary and be done with it if the float is low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83daadb1d3d40283d29d23eec7043f22", "text": "Could well be a good work enviroment. The story widely reported back in Nov '11 before the IPO was that workers who had been given shares and options in lieu of salaries in the start-up days were then being pressured prior to the IPO to give up their shares or face possible job loss. Maybe just a few senior people were affected, but it didnt sound good.", "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": "9cb9607f632f7b754230d57add0e87a0", "text": "\"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \"\"nose-diving\"\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc41920a42710dffa8387e0de43b0ec2", "text": "GBP has already lost part of his value just because of the fear of Brexit. An actual Brexit may not change GBP as much as expected, but a no-Brexit could rise GBP really a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feea3c7cd647080a887e72b9affeb790", "text": "\"Others have mentioned the exchange rate, but this can play out in various ways. One thing we've seen since the \"\"Brexit\"\" vote is that the GBP/USD has fallen dramatically, but the value of the FTSE has gone up. This is partly due to many the companies listed there operating largely outside the UK, so their value is more linked to the dollar than the pound. It can definitely make sense to invest in stocks in a country more stable than your own, if feasible and not too expensive. Some years ago I took the 50/50 UK/US option for my (UK) pension, and it's worked out very well so far.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc4c5b81b457c266564306a0a073fab8", "text": "Absolutely nothing, and it's not their call to make. The shareholders will want to cut it into as many parts as they can sell to recoup some of their lost investment. The judge will demand it even if they suddenly had a moral thought. This will happen when this (and all those other companies) go under, refocuses priorities, or shuts down departments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2cf5d93ef9d46587a07d38d03c16659", "text": "Public companies sometimes buy up all their shares in order to go private^(1). Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? If so, [this article](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/public-companies-privatize-go-private.asp) might be of interest to you. ^(1) Actually, most of the time, they partner with private equity firms to do it, but I think the effect is essentially what you're describing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66c2e069c3503182b76c10aac73e22e5", "text": "Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7816daea1863b97ee7b1d43035a98e4b", "text": "Activist investors can control as little as 2% of a company and still have a large effect on strategy. Since the demand is so low (removal of one account) isn't it a pretty easy choice to just make the shareholders happy?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5a1e02a83ece448b4cfddd099a90eeb", "text": "People who provide services like that are called debt councilors or debt advisors. They help you to organize your debts, advise you in prioritizing them and also help you to negotiate or legally challenge any unreasonable levies.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8c1451567018ae65689b6bac99a969b5", "text": "\"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for \"\"institutions\"\" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth. Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39e5f0fa23d8f3eef2d9f75eafd4b26", "text": "FINRA defines institutional investors as: Institutional investors include banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisors, a person or entity with assets of at least $50 million, government entities, employee benefit plans and qualified plans with at least 100 participants, FINRA member firms and registered persons, and a person acting solely on behalf of an institutional investor. From: http://www.finra.org/industry/issues/faq-advertising Based on Rules 2210(a)(4) and 4512(c). Institutional investors are expected to understand market risks and as a result, disclosure requirements are much lower (perhaps no SEC filings and no prospectus).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088", "text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af07ba093ad3bf3c12d63cecac20e87c", "text": "\"In the article itself, it's stated: *\"\"Yale University, where we work, has a de minimis exposure to IEX through an investment by one of the university’s external managers.\"\"* I mean, that's pretty straightforward to me. I promise you that Yale is also indirectly invested in every single public exchange out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18bf086eb9e21e1d63410fb0a3786dab", "text": "The role of business investors differs greatly within different organisations. If you are starting a business or already have a small business, business investors can be a key tool to get your business of the ground. Business investors give money to small businesses or start-ups in exchange for ownership in a part of the company.", "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": "c285533b113f9073d2326dd82af1a7a2", "text": "Little investors rarely have a say in it. If you have direct control over routing, that's one thing (some platforms allow it). But if you're a fund investor or a pension beneficiary, it's completely out of your hands. Re: The author. One of them - [David Swensen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swensen) - is actually the chief investment officer at Yale University. I'm pretty sure he has a clue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f619e556111df0fd3eaf002df79a9597", "text": "Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.", "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": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1", "text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09d73bab00ea66f3a7bab0e5279f1939", "text": "&gt; Also the institutional investor only has the advantage of leverage And, you know, capital, better data, better technical knowledge, and better just about everything else. It's the same reason why the average investor is better off buying a blue-chip stock while a buy-side guy buys more complex financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38f347119ddb7ea280ce6191e1008d26", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"", "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": "8cec8e3718d450184a4146aeaa725fb9", "text": "\"**David F. Swensen** David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93e6f4f2c4c147ccebf57367703b8672", "text": "Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation. In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically. The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c020cee61c8b52238f5db2dd9a7d507", "text": "Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession. I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market. Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession. Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate. With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.", "title": "" } ]