coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates."},{"docid":"427522","title":"","text":"\"Having just gone through selling a car, I can tell you that CarMax will most likely not be the best solution. I recently sold my '09 Pontiac Vibe which had a KBB and Edmonds value (private party sale) of around $6k. Trade-in value was around $4,800. I took it to the local CarMax for a quote, and they came back with $3,500. Refinancing is tricky. Banks have a set limit on how old a car they will finance. Many won't even offer financing if the vehicle has over 100k miles. We looked at refinancing our other car, and even getting the APR down over a point we would only have saved $15/mo or so. Banks typically offer much higher interest rates for used non-dealership cars and refinancing than they do for new cars, or even used cars purchased from a dealership. Assuming you have 2-3 years left on your loan, I don't think that refinancing would save you enough to be worth considering. CarMax sells cars in 1 of 2 ways. They are also up front with you about the process. They do not reference KBB or Edmonds or any other valuation tool other than their own internal system. They either take the car, spruce it up a bit, then resell it on their lot, or they sell it at auction. If they determine your car will be sold at auction, then they will offer you a rock bottom price. The determining factors that come into play include age of the car, mileage, and of course overall condition. If you Mini is still in good shape and doesn't have a lot of miles, then they may try to resell it on their lot, for which they could offer you closer to personal-sale price than trade-in. How many 2007's are for sale in your area? How much are they selling for? I did sell them a truck back in 2005 and received $200 more than KBB valued it for, but it was in great shape, only a couple of years old, relatively low mileage, and it was in high demand. God bless the South and their love for trucks! I ended up selling my Pontiac to another local car dealership. They offered me $5,300 (after negotiating, leaving the dealership, then negotiating more over the phone). It took me a day and a half and really very little effort. I have several friends that have gone through the same thing with selling cars, and all have had similar luck going to other dealerships, where prices can be negotiated, rather than CarMax. CarMax has no incentive to \"\"settle\"\" or forgive your loan. If you really want to pay it off, save up what you believe the difference will be, then shop your car around the local dealerships and get prices for your Mini. Remember that dealers have to turn a profit, so be reasonable with your negotiation. If you can find comparable vehicles in your area listed for $X,000 then knock $1,500 off that price and tell the dealerships that's what you want.\""},{"docid":"379116","title":"","text":"Another bit of advice specific to your scenario. Consider buying an ALMOST new car. Buying last year's model can knock a huge amount off the price and the car is going to still feel very new to you, especially if you buy from a dealer who has had it detailed."},{"docid":"384627","title":"","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."},{"docid":"307158","title":"","text":"\"A lease is a rental plain and simple. You borrow money to finance the expected depreciation over the course of the lease term. This arrangement will almost always cost more over time of your \"\"ownership.\"\" That does not mean that a lease is always a worse \"\"deal.\"\" Cars are almost always a losing proposition; save for the oddball Porsche or Ferrari that is too scarce relative to demand. You accept ownership of a car and it starts to lose value. New cars lose value faster than used cars. Typically, if you were to purchase the car, then sell it after 3 years, the total cost over those three years will work out to less total money than the equivalent 36 month lease. But, you will have to come up with a lot more money down, or a higher monthly payment, and/or sell the car after 36 months (assuming the pretty standard 36 month lease). With this in mind, some cars lease better than others because the projected depreciation is more favorable than other brands or models. Personally, I bought a slightly used car certified pre-owned with a agreeable factory warranty extension. My next car I may lease. Late model cars are getting so unbelievably expensive to maintain that more and more I feel like a long term rental has merit. Just understand that for the convenience, for the freeing up of your cash flow, for the unlikelihood of maintenance, to not bother with resale or trading the car in, a lease will cost a premium over a purchase over the same time frame.\""},{"docid":"71036","title":"","text":"\"(Ignoring any ethical considerations of defaulting on a mortgage obligation) If your credit score fell, future costs of borrowing would be greater, if you could borrow money at all. The true financial cost of these penalties would depend on your own intentions and circumstances. The value of a credit score cannot be quantified in any absolute sense because of these circumstances which will vary from person to person. Suppose a decision would result in your score falling from 700 to 600. As a result, a future car loan would cost something like 2% more in interest per year. Let's also suppose you would not be able to find a bank to give you money to buy a new home. The difficulties caused by this situation would depend on the person. Some people have no intention of taking out another mortgage or buying another car, and to them, a lowered credit score might make no difference. To others, it would be desirable to avoid these penalties. The value of credit score would be equal to how much you would be willing to pay in the present to avoid these future penalties. If you intend to borrow money in the near future, and somehow know how much more interest you will pay as a result of your lower score, then you could approximate the value of the credit drop by summing all of the additional interest costs discounted into the present. Something a little like this: Year's Additional Cost in Interest / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds) ^ (Years in the future this extra interest will be paid). See time value of money explanation: Can you explain \"\"time value of money\"\" and \"\"compound interest\"\" and provide examples of each? It could also be the case that you miss out on valuable financial opportunities as a result which could be added to the present value of the credit score drop. For example, if the drop made you totally unable to purchase an investment property that would net you $10,000 in cash flows /year (which would yield cash flows immediately). The value of that investment would have been $10,000 / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds). Since you would not be able to make that investment (in this example) as a result of the decreased score, the present value of the investment would be an opportunity cost of the lower score. There are other hard-to-quantify costs of low credit to consider as well, ranging from housing to employment to bragging rights. Hopefully this has helped :)\""},{"docid":"233894","title":"","text":"I think you're dancing with the line here, this question is hard to back up without opinions and could really be three different questions. I'm going to push aside the part about quality and reliability, that could be an emotional subject. So from a price standpoint, there's virtually no disagrement that it makes financial sense to buy a used car instead of a new car. The majority of new cars lose the majority of their resale value within the first year or two. If you purchase said car after someone else has used it for the first two years, you just avoided all of that depreciation yourself, and you're still going to be purchasing a perfectly reliable car as long as you are diligent in the buying process."},{"docid":"205098","title":"","text":"\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \"\"Reasonable\"\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"305153\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Now, to buy in full (and essentially have zero savings), buy in part (£10000 deposit, followed by a loan of £4000) or PCP/HP more of the value? So, you are assessing if the car is worth having with either none or only 4,000 in savings. This is the most critical information you have provided. My outright opinion is to always buy a mildly used car as I hate the idea of loans and interest. With the amount of money that you currently possess, I believe the \\\"\\\"Buy-in-part\\\"\\\" option is best as it reduces your interest liability; but, I don't believe you should do it currently. 4,000 is a rather small cash fund for if something were to go boom in the night. As for your question of interest: This is completely dependent on the amount you are able to pay per period and the total interest you are willing to spend, rows four and seven respectively. This is your money, and no one can tell you what's best to do with it than yourself. Keep looking for good leasing deals or if you think you can survive financial strife with 4,000 then follow your heart. \\\"\\\"Depreciation\\\"\\\" fluctuates to the buyer, so never assume what the car may lose in the next 2-3 years. Hope it all goes well my friend.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"34810\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \\\"\\\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\\\"\\\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \\\"\\\"Items you use outside your business\\\"\\\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \\\"\\\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\\\"\\\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \\\"\\\"to use it outside your business\\\"\\\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \\\"\\\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\\\"\\\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"180295\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"297102\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"For big values the loss becomes negligible. Say you have a 10% chance to get 10 million $/€/Whatever, expected value 1m. You sell that chance for 990k, which loses you 10k of expected income. Why would you throw away 10k? Because in the face of getting almost 1m the 10k are insignificant, 1m and 990k will make you roughly equally rich. Also the richness increase from 1m to 10m is less than 10x since 1m gives you maybe 90% of the freedom that 10m does (depending on how well you can make 10m work for you, most people will just let it rot in the bank). Another way to look at it is to look at bankruptcy risk. Say I have 10k in the bank, which is nice. Those 10k cannot pay for a new house or 2 cars (mine and the one I hit), so I have a small risk of significant loss. If I buy an insurance I reduce my chance of going bankrupt from maybe 0.001% to 0% for a fairly small price. Usually you can buy insurance fairly cheap if you raise your deductible to maybe 5k (both for the house and the car) so that you shoulder the risk you can (shouldering risk = gaining money) and paying an insurance to shoulder the rest for you. That way you minimize the cost to remove the risk of bankruptcy. It makes sense to shoulder as much risk as you can (unless a fixed fee of the insurance makes in unfeasible) before paying others to do it for you so you can optimize your income while removing fatal risks.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"285033\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \\\"\\\"Dealer Cash\\\"\\\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \\\"\\\"Capitalized Cost\\\"\\\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \\\"\\\"Captive\\\"\\\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"459799\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A while back I sold cars for a living. Over the course of 4 years I worked for 3 different dealerships. I sold new cars at 2 and used at the last one. When selling new cars I found that the majority of people buying the higher end cars honestly shouldn't have been - 80%+. They almost always came in owing more on their trades then they were worth, put down very little cash and were close to being financially strapped. From a financial perspective these deals were hard to close, not because the buyer was picky but rather because their finances were a mess. Fully half, and probably more, we had to switch from the car they initially wanted down to a much cheaper version or try to convert to a lease because it was the only way the bank would loan the money. We called them \\\"\\\"$30,000 millionaires\\\"\\\" because they didn't make a whole lot but tried to look like they did. As a salesman you knew you were in serious trouble when they didn't even try to negotiate. Around 2% of the deals I did were actual cash deals - meaning honest cash, not those who came in with a pre-approved loan from a bank. These were invariably for used cars about 3 to 4 years old and they never had a trade in. The people doing this always looked comfortable but never dressed up, you wouldn't even look at them twice. The negotiations were hard because they knew exactly how much that car should go for and wouldn't even pay that. It was obvious they knew the value of money. That said, I've been in the top 3% of wage earners for about 20 years and at no point have I considered myself in a position to \\\"\\\"afford\\\"\\\" a new \\\"\\\"luxury\\\"\\\" car. IMHO, there are far more important things you can do with that kind of money.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"359131\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations. Not only did they not honor them but most refused to talk with us after they found out. With a lease you don't have to worry about losing this money in the negotiations. You might pay a little extra (or not since you can shop around) but after the lease you wash your hands of the car. The one caveat to this is the high-end market. When you are talking your Acura, Mercedes, Lexus... It is probably better to buy and trade in every couple years. You lose too much equity by leasing, where it won't cover the trade-in gap and cost of your money being elsewhere. I have a friend that does this and gets a slightly better car every 2-3 years with same monthly payment. Another factor to consider is the price of a car. If your car will be worth over $15K at time of sale you are going to have a hard time selling it by owner. When amounts get this high people often need financing. Yes they can get personal financing but most people are too lazy to do this. So the number of used car buyers on let's say craigslist are way way fewer as you start getting over $10-12K and I have found $15K to be kind of that magic amount. The pro-buy-used side is easy. Aim for those cars around $12-18K that are out there (and many still under warranty). These owners will have issues finding cash buyers. They will drop prices somewhere between book price and dealer trade-in. In lucky cases where they need cash maybe below dealer trade-in. And remember these sellers aren't dealing with 100s let alone 10 buyers. You drive the car for 3-4 years. Maybe it is $7-10K. But now you will get much much closer to book price because there will be far more buyers in this range.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"296799\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You got some answers that essentially inform you that CEOs that have £200k written on their paysheet may in fact get much more. I'll take the opposite point of view and talk about people who (according to whatever definition) have a £200k/year income. How can they afford it Guess no 1: not all of them can (in the sense that it is quite possible to end up with negative net worth at £200k/year income - particularly if you immediately want to show off with brand new luxury cars, luxury holidays and a large house in a very representative region). Guess no 2: not all of the £200k/year CEOs are equally visible. There is a trade-off between going for wealth, large house, and luxury car. I deliberately ordered the three points according to increased display of \\\"\\\"wealth\\\"\\\". However, display of wealth usually comes at a cost (in a very monetary sense). And there are ways to get much display without having much wealth (see below: lease the car, also the mortgage on the house usually isn't displayed on the outside). You also need to take into account how long they are already building up wealth. I guess the typical CEO with £200k/year you're asking about did not just finish school and enter his work life in this position. It would be very interesting to see how income, accumulating wealth (and possibly \\\"\\\"displayed wealth\\\"\\\") correlate. My guess is that the correlation between income and accumulated wealth isn't that high, and the correlation between displayed and actual wealth is probably even lower. they possess luxury cars, large house and huge savings Are you sure these are the same managers? E.g. the ones with the huge savings are and the ones with the luxury cars? I'm asking particularly about the luxury cars, because such cars loose value very quickly and/or are often not owned by the driver but rather by the bank or leasing company. Which on the other hand offers the more savings-oriented CEO who is not that much interested in having a brand new luxury car the possibility to go for a one-year-old and save the rest. Knowing that, your CEO should be able to buy a one-year-old Mercedes SL 350 / year. Or a new one every 1 1/2 years (without building up savings or buying a house). However, building up wealth will be much faster with the CEO going for the one-year-old as the brand-new car option amounts to loosing ca. £20 - 30k within a year. An even-more-savings-oriented CEO who keeps his existing Mercedes 300 TD for another few years, thinking that this conservative choice of car will be trust-inspiring to the customers. Or goes for the SLK thinking that most people anyways don't know that the K between SL and SLK halves the price... However, if you just want to be seen with the car: after an initial payment of say £8-10k, you can get a decent SLK 350 (not the base model, either) at a monthly rate of ca. 600£/month or less than £7k/year. Note however, that this money does not count towards any kind of wealth, it's just renting a nice car. In other words: If driving the SLK 350 is your absolute goal, you could in theory have that with a net salary of £25k/year (according to your tax calculation, that should be somewhere around £35k / year gross), if you have the savings for the initial payment (being able to make the initial payment may also help convincin the leasing company that you're serious about it and able to pay your rates). There are also huge differences in value between large houses, compare e.g. these 2: And, last but not least, there is a decided one-way component in the timing of priorities here: it is much easier to go and get a luxury car when you have savings than first going for the luxury car and then trying to make up with the savings... I forgot to answer the question in the caption of your question: How do I build wealth By going on to live as if your income were only £50k (as far as that is compatible with your job) - I gather the median gross income in the UK is about £30k, so aiming at £50k leaves you a very comfortable budget for luxury spending. If you want to build up wealth faster, adjust that. In general, if you can manage to withhold much of any income increase from spending, that will help (trivial but powerful truth). From the leasing calculation you can conclude that you basically have no chance to show off your wealth by luxury cars. That is, you'd need to go for luxury cars that are completely incompatible with with building if you want to show your built up wealth by the car: there are too many people who even destroy their existing wealth in order to display luxury. At least if anyone is around who has either a correct idea what luxury cars cost (or don't cost) or will look that up in the internet. Also, people who know such things may also have the idea that the probability that such a car was downright paid (wealth) is small compared to the probability of meeting a leased or (mortgaged) car. Which means, the plan to show off doesn't work out that well with the people you'd want to impress. As for the other people: just a bit of display you can get far cheaper: If you really want to drive the SLK, rent it for an occasion (weekend) rather than for years. I met a sales manager who told me which rental cars they get when important customers from far east are visiting. The rest of the year they drive normal business cars. You may want to choose a rental company that doesn't write their name on the license plate. Apply the same ideas to the decision of buying a house. Think about what you want for yourself, and then look where you can get how much of that for how much money. Oh, and by the way: if I understand correctly, the average UK CEO wage is £120k, not £200k.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"496752\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate. All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible. It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher. In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid. If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal. The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house. You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college. You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time. Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income. In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income. If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that. For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later. It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason. Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off. Then if you lose your job then, you only have to worry about taxes and upkeep but that means you can still lose the home. If you instead take the extra money and keep a rainy day fund, you'll have access to that money if you hit a rough patch. If you put all of your extra cash in the house, you'll be forced to sell if you need that capital and it may not be at the best time. You might not even be able to pay off the loan at the current market value. My father took out a 30 year loan and followed the advice of an older coworker to 'buy as much house as possible because inflation will pay for it'. By the end of the loan, he was paying something like $250 a month and the house was worth upwards of $200K. That is, his mortgage payment was less than the payment on a cheap car. It was an insignificant cost compared to his income and he had been able to invest enough to retire in comfort. Of course when he bought it, inflation was above 10% so it's bit different today but the same concepts still apply, just different numbers. I personally would not take anything less than a 30 year loan at current rates unless I planned to retire in 15 years.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"34626\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \\\"\\\"more car\\\"\\\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"352428\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Suggested way to make the decision to repair or buy: Figure out what it will cost to repair your car. (If necessary, pay a garage to evaluate it \\\"\\\"as if your daughter was interested in buying it\\\"\\\".) Then think about whether you would pay that much to buy a car just like yours but without those problems. If the answer is yes, fixing it us probably your most cost-effective choice, even if it is a big bill. If the answer is no, consider a used car, and again have the mechanic check it for any lurking horrors before committing to buy it. That avoids the \\\"\\\"proprty-line tax\\\"\\\" where a new car loses a significant percentage of its value the moment it leaves the dealership. An almost-toy car us virtually indistinguishable from a new car, costs much less, and realistically has about the same expected life span. I bought a new car once -- at about $300 over the dealer's real (as opposed to sticker) cost, since I was willing to take the one he was stuck with from the previous model year. (Thank you, Consumer Reports, for providing the dealer's cost info and making this a five-minute transaction.) If it hadn't suffered flood damage I'd probably still be driving it, and even so I sorta regret not pricing what it would have cost go completely replace the engine. If you really plan to drive it until it is completely unrepairable, you may be able to justify a new car... But realistically buying a one- or two-year-old car would have been a better choice.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"124423\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Because we're still in competition. Before it was against nature, now it's against ourselves. The world is not yet some safe paradise and its well within living memory that total war changed billions of lives and almost took away freedom for many. Take 2 equal economies. One grows at 1% and another grows at 3%, in 100 years the 2nd will be 7 times more powerful than the other.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"247709\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Short answer: No. Longer answer: The only reason to move would be to get out of the condo and into a SFR of equal cost because condos can be quite difficult to sell and you don't really want that potential burden later on. Moving is expensive though and you can't afford to spend more when you are already living on the financial edge. Speaking of living on the edge, that's a recipe for disaster. I make, ratio-wise, a similar sort of income. Even accounting for the generous college tuition, you should be able to save at least $20K per year...at a bare minimum. And if you were careful, I figure you should be able to save $40K/year. You need to figure out where you are dumping all of your money and cut WAY back on spending and focus entirely on saving money. 1) Stop eating out. Make your own meals. I average about $2 per meal per person - no junk food. Eating out is 6 to 30 times as expensive as making meals at home. Do the math: $10 * 2 people * number of times you eat out per week * 52 ($1,040 per year for each time/week!) vs $2 * 2 people * 21 (3 meals per day) * 52 ($4,368 per year for both of you...maximum). Now I know some meals are more expensive to prepare, but the math is not unrealistic - I spend about $140 per month on groceries and make the bulk of my own food. Eating out is sticker shock for me. The food I prepare is nutritionally balanced and complete. Now I'm not a complete health-nut. I love the occasional deep-fried treat or hamburger, but those are \\\"\\\"once every couple of months\\\"\\\" sort of things, which makes them special. 2) Stop going to Starbucks or wherever you habitually go. It takes fuel to get there. It's also expensive when you get there. Bring your own drink if you are hanging out with friends. 3) Drop golf. Or whatever expensive sport you are sinking money into. Invest in some cheap running clothes and focus on cardio-based workouts. Heart health is more important than anything else. If you can't live without your sport, then find an alternate sport that is \\\"\\\"equal\\\"\\\"-ish in challenge but a ton cheaper to play. For example, if you like playing golf, play discgolf instead (most cities have courses) - there's no cost beyond a couple of discs and the challenge is still there. 4) Drop entertainment. Movies at the theater are expensive. Drop your cable subscription (you are getting financially raped for $1,500/year). Get a Netflix subscription and find shows via free online streaming services. Buy some dominoes, card games, and a couple of classic board games. Keep entertainment simple and cheap. 5) Drop your cell phone's data plan. Republic Wireless is the only decent cellular provider and even their $12/month plan is living a luxury lifestyle. If you spend more than $10/month/person for phone service, you are spending too much. 6) Stop driving everywhere. Gas is expensive. Cars are expensive. If you have more than two cars, sell the extras. If your car is worth more than $20,000, sell it and get something cheaper. 7) Stop drinking alcohol. Alcohol impairs mental functions, is addictive, smells terrible, and is ridiculously expensive. There's no actual need to consume it either. By the way, don't go and make major financial changes without the wife's sign-off. Finances are the #1 reason for divorce. So get her \\\"\\\"OK\\\"\\\" on this stuff. Hopefully you already knew that. The above are just some common financial pitfalls where people sink thousands and thousand of dollars and gain nothing. You can still have a full and complete life with just a minimum of the above. There is no excuse for living on the edge financially. Your story is one I'm going to share with those who give me the same excuse because they are \\\"\\\"poor\\\"\\\". You are \\\"\\\"I want to punch you in the face\\\"\\\" wealthy and you spend every last penny because you think that's how money works. You are wrong. One final piece of advice: Find a financial adviser. It is clear to me that you've been managing money wrong your whole life. A financial adviser will look at your situation and help you far more than someone on the Internet ever can. If you attend a church, many churches have the excellent Crown Financial Ministries program available which teaches sound financial management principles. The education system doesn't show people how to manage money, but that's not an excuse either. Once you dig yourself out of the financial hole you've dug for yourself, you can pass the knowledge on how to correctly manage money onto other people.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"110371\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"There are a few things you should keep in mind when getting another vehicle: DON'T use dealership financing. Get an idea of the price range you're looking for, and go to your local bank or find a local credit union and get a pre-approval for a loan amount (that will also let you know what kind of interest rates you'll get). Your credit score is high enough that you shouldn't have any problems securing a decent APR. Check your financing institution's rules on financing beyond the vehicle's value. The CU that refinanced my car noted that between 100% and 120% of the vehicle's value means an additional 2% APR for the life of the loan. Value between 120% and 130% incurred an additional 3% APR. Your goal here is to have the total amount of the loan less than or equal to the value of the car through the sale / trade-in of your current vehicle, and paying off whatever's left out of pocket (either as a down-payment, or simply paying off the existing loan). If you can't manage that, then you're looking at immediately being upside-down on the new vehicle, with a potential APR penalty.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"184776\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"280805\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Some things you missed in your analysis: How will financing change your insurance costs? I.e. what is the difference between the insurance that you would buy for yourself and what they require? Note that it is possible that your insurance preferences are more stringent than the financing company's. If so, this isn't a big deal. But what's important is to consider if that's true. Because if you'd prefer to drive with only the legal minimum insurance and they insist that you have full coverage with no more than a $1000 deductible, that's a significant difference. Remember that you don't have $22.5k for six years. You have an average of $10.5k (($22.5k + -$1500)/2) for six years. Because you make payments ($24k) throughout. So you start with $22.5k and subtract $333.33 a month until you reach -$1500. That neglects both investment gains and potential losses. It's not the $333 payment that will freak out mortgage companies. It's the $24k debt. But that's offset by your $22.5k in assets at the beginning. And the car of course counts as an asset, albeit at lower than its sale value. I.e. from the bank's perspective, paying $22.5k for a car out of savings is almost as bad as borrowing $24k for a car. Both reduce your net worth. Watch out for hidden fees. In particular, 0% interest can often change into higher interest under certain circumstances. If we assume a 7% return for the six years, that's about $1400 the first year and less each year after. Perhaps $4500 over six years. But you aren't going to get a 7% return if you keep $24,000 in a bank account in case you have to pay off the loan. Instead, you'll get more like 1%, less than inflation. Even five year Certificates of Deposit are only about 2%, right around inflation (1.9% for previous twelve months). You can't keep the $24,000 in a securities account and be sure that it will be there when you need it. If the market crashes tomorrow, your $24,000 might be worth $12,000 instead. You'd have to throw in extra money from elsewhere. Instead of making $4500 at the cost of $1500, you'd have paid $25,500 for $12,000. Not a good deal. So for your plan to work, that $24,000 needs to be in an account that won't fall in value. You either need to compromise on the idea of a separate account that is always there when you need it, or you have to accept rather low returns. Personally, I would prefer not to have the debt and not to pay extra on the insurance. But that's me. The potential investment returns are not worth it to me. If you give up the separate account, you can make a few thousand dollars more. But your risk is higher.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"372777\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Yeah, exactly. The difference is that Ferrari is making money. EDIT: to clarify... - Ferrari sells a niche product to a boutique customer-base willing to pay a premium in terms of both price and purchasing difficulty for exclusive, super-premium cars that are manufactured to artisan standards with little or no regard for cost-efficiency or price-to-value ratio, etc. People buying Ferrari are not looking for a \\\"\\\"sensible deal\\\"\\\", they are people who can afford to pay for something special, rare, and uncompromising. Tesla is in a similar market-position. - Ferrari actually makes money selling their cars. They do a low-volume boutique business, and charge prices that reflect a low volume of artisan-made specialty product. I am sure that certain special-order customers have to wait some time for delivery, but I drive by a Ferrari dealership every day on my way to work that has maybe 50 Ferraris sitting in a lot, that you can drive off with same-day, if you want. You can literally drive up, test-drive, and buy one tomorrow (if you have the scratch). OTOH... - Teslas are cheaper than Ferraris, but they are still deep into the super-premium price category. They are well outside the \\\"\\\"value-proposition\\\"\\\" customer-base. They are also (perhaps even more than Ferrari), in a market segment without meaningful competition. There are several super-premium 2-seaters in the $100-200k price range, but I suspect most Tesla shoppers are not mostly comparing them against Porsches or Vipers or Benzes. The all-electric supercar market is not a highly competitive one. - There is massive demand for Teslas, as is evidenced by the extremely thin used market, the year-plus-long wait list, and all that in the face of extremely customer-unfriendly sales/distribution and almost zero marketing... That is, people are waiting up in 18-month long lines to buy cars that they can't inspect at a local dealership, have no way to test-drive, and often have never even seen in person, and they are putting down cash deposits to do so, in amounts that could buy some pretty nice sports cars for the deposit alone. Moreover, it's not like Tesla buyers are going to change their minds and get a Chevy Volt or Honda Insight instead (although they might get both). This is any startups wet-dream: - You have a product that is not only already in production, but that you have been shipping for several years-- you *know* the tooling, manufacturing, support, and delivery costs, because you have actually been *doing it* for *years.* - You not only have no issues whatsoever with regards to building a customer-base, you already have paying customers and genuine orders *already booked* through 2014, more than you can keep up with. - You have a product with massive demand and almost non-existent price-pressure. You've got orders booked over a year out at asking price with virtually zero marketing or advertising, most customers buying site-unseen purely based on concept and reputation, and your customers are paying super-premium prices with no direct competitor alternative. This is a goldmine. This is the kind of thing that business-school textbooks tell you never happens. Rational-market theory says it's impossible to have a big-ticket product offering with essentially unlimited demand and zero meaningful competition. Moreover, this is happening in an environment where the business is not only receiving direct gov't subsidies, but where borrowing costs are close to negative in real dollars. A going concern with booked orders and guaranteed revenue through 2014 should, if anything, be *borrowing from banks to buy back equity*, not selling equity to raise capital. If Tesla needs to raise capital, then something is seriously wrong with the underlying business. As in, wrong enough that its current sales are not only un-profitable, but that currently-booked future sales will continue to be un-profitable for the foreseeable future (otherwise they could just borrow). You can plead \\\"\\\"startup\\\"\\\" when you have a small customer base but a great concept. You can plead \\\"\\\"startup\\\"\\\" when you first start shipping product in small quantities at low prices. But you can't plead \\\"\\\"startup\\\"\\\" when you have been shipping a product for years, and when you have customer-orders booked years out, at full asking price, with no meaningful price or product-competition.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"498034\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is my opinion as a car nut. It depends on what you want out of a car. For your situation (paying cash, want to keep the car long-term but also save money) I recommend seriously considering a slightly used vehicle, maybe 2 or 3 years old, or a \\\"\\\"certified pre-owned vehicle\\\"\\\". Reasons: Much less expensive than a brand new car because the first two years have the biggest depreciation hit. Cars come with a 4-year warranty, so a 3 year old car will still be in warranty. Yes, a certified pre-owned car will have a bit of a premium compared to a private-party used car, but the peace of mind of knowing it's in good shape is worth the extra cost considering you want to keep it long term. Consumer Reports will have good advice on the best values in used cars.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"416606\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"271076\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value. They are a disposable item that gets used up. The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.* That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car. Do not get a loan. Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car. That is a lot of money for a long range goal. If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want. You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose. However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late. You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving. If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal. If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value. You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"555581\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Yes, it is possible for you to refinance your existing auto loan, and so long as you can get the loan on more favorable terms (e.g.: lower interest rate), it is absolutely a smart thing to do. In fact, you would be well advised to do so as soon as possible if the car was a new car, if you refinance a NEW car soon enough you will likely still be able to get new car interest rates. Even if it is a pre-owned vehicle you shouldn't wait too long, since your car will only depreciate in value. You will almost certainly get more favorable terms from any bank or credit union directly then you would when you go through the dealership, because the dealership is allowed to mark-up your interest rate several percentage points as profit for themselves. Your best bet would be to go to a local credit union, their rates tend to be most competitive since they are \\\"\\\"owned\\\"\\\" by their members.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"494616\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"127434\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"427522\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Having just gone through selling a car, I can tell you that CarMax will most likely not be the best solution. I recently sold my '09 Pontiac Vibe which had a KBB and Edmonds value (private party sale) of around $6k. Trade-in value was around $4,800. I took it to the local CarMax for a quote, and they came back with $3,500. Refinancing is tricky. Banks have a set limit on how old a car they will finance. Many won't even offer financing if the vehicle has over 100k miles. We looked at refinancing our other car, and even getting the APR down over a point we would only have saved $15/mo or so. Banks typically offer much higher interest rates for used non-dealership cars and refinancing than they do for new cars, or even used cars purchased from a dealership. Assuming you have 2-3 years left on your loan, I don't think that refinancing would save you enough to be worth considering. CarMax sells cars in 1 of 2 ways. They are also up front with you about the process. They do not reference KBB or Edmonds or any other valuation tool other than their own internal system. They either take the car, spruce it up a bit, then resell it on their lot, or they sell it at auction. If they determine your car will be sold at auction, then they will offer you a rock bottom price. The determining factors that come into play include age of the car, mileage, and of course overall condition. If you Mini is still in good shape and doesn't have a lot of miles, then they may try to resell it on their lot, for which they could offer you closer to personal-sale price than trade-in. How many 2007's are for sale in your area? How much are they selling for? I did sell them a truck back in 2005 and received $200 more than KBB valued it for, but it was in great shape, only a couple of years old, relatively low mileage, and it was in high demand. God bless the South and their love for trucks! I ended up selling my Pontiac to another local car dealership. They offered me $5,300 (after negotiating, leaving the dealership, then negotiating more over the phone). It took me a day and a half and really very little effort. I have several friends that have gone through the same thing with selling cars, and all have had similar luck going to other dealerships, where prices can be negotiated, rather than CarMax. CarMax has no incentive to \\\"\\\"settle\\\"\\\" or forgive your loan. If you really want to pay it off, save up what you believe the difference will be, then shop your car around the local dealerships and get prices for your Mini. Remember that dealers have to turn a profit, so be reasonable with your negotiation. If you can find comparable vehicles in your area listed for $X,000 then knock $1,500 off that price and tell the dealerships that's what you want.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"379116\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Another bit of advice specific to your scenario. Consider buying an ALMOST new car. Buying last year's model can knock a huge amount off the price and the car is going to still feel very new to you, especially if you buy from a dealer who has had it detailed.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"384627\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"307158\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A lease is a rental plain and simple. You borrow money to finance the expected depreciation over the course of the lease term. This arrangement will almost always cost more over time of your \\\"\\\"ownership.\\\"\\\" That does not mean that a lease is always a worse \\\"\\\"deal.\\\"\\\" Cars are almost always a losing proposition; save for the oddball Porsche or Ferrari that is too scarce relative to demand. You accept ownership of a car and it starts to lose value. New cars lose value faster than used cars. Typically, if you were to purchase the car, then sell it after 3 years, the total cost over those three years will work out to less total money than the equivalent 36 month lease. But, you will have to come up with a lot more money down, or a higher monthly payment, and/or sell the car after 36 months (assuming the pretty standard 36 month lease). With this in mind, some cars lease better than others because the projected depreciation is more favorable than other brands or models. Personally, I bought a slightly used car certified pre-owned with a agreeable factory warranty extension. My next car I may lease. Late model cars are getting so unbelievably expensive to maintain that more and more I feel like a long term rental has merit. Just understand that for the convenience, for the freeing up of your cash flow, for the unlikelihood of maintenance, to not bother with resale or trading the car in, a lease will cost a premium over a purchase over the same time frame.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"71036\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"(Ignoring any ethical considerations of defaulting on a mortgage obligation) If your credit score fell, future costs of borrowing would be greater, if you could borrow money at all. The true financial cost of these penalties would depend on your own intentions and circumstances. The value of a credit score cannot be quantified in any absolute sense because of these circumstances which will vary from person to person. Suppose a decision would result in your score falling from 700 to 600. As a result, a future car loan would cost something like 2% more in interest per year. Let's also suppose you would not be able to find a bank to give you money to buy a new home. The difficulties caused by this situation would depend on the person. Some people have no intention of taking out another mortgage or buying another car, and to them, a lowered credit score might make no difference. To others, it would be desirable to avoid these penalties. The value of credit score would be equal to how much you would be willing to pay in the present to avoid these future penalties. If you intend to borrow money in the near future, and somehow know how much more interest you will pay as a result of your lower score, then you could approximate the value of the credit drop by summing all of the additional interest costs discounted into the present. Something a little like this: Year's Additional Cost in Interest / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds) ^ (Years in the future this extra interest will be paid). See time value of money explanation: Can you explain \\\"\\\"time value of money\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"compound interest\\\"\\\" and provide examples of each? It could also be the case that you miss out on valuable financial opportunities as a result which could be added to the present value of the credit score drop. For example, if the drop made you totally unable to purchase an investment property that would net you $10,000 in cash flows /year (which would yield cash flows immediately). The value of that investment would have been $10,000 / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds). Since you would not be able to make that investment (in this example) as a result of the decreased score, the present value of the investment would be an opportunity cost of the lower score. There are other hard-to-quantify costs of low credit to consider as well, ranging from housing to employment to bragging rights. Hopefully this has helped :)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"233894\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I think you're dancing with the line here, this question is hard to back up without opinions and could really be three different questions. I'm going to push aside the part about quality and reliability, that could be an emotional subject. So from a price standpoint, there's virtually no disagrement that it makes financial sense to buy a used car instead of a new car. The majority of new cars lose the majority of their resale value within the first year or two. If you purchase said car after someone else has used it for the first two years, you just avoided all of that depreciation yourself, and you're still going to be purchasing a perfectly reliable car as long as you are diligent in the buying process.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"205098\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \\\"\\\"Reasonable\\\"\\\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":86,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8793"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"When's the best time to sell the stock of a company that is being acquired/sold?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"68515","title":"","text":"\"Here is one \"\"other consideration\"\": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can mean that you have insider information that you legally cannot act on in many jurisdictions. If you are just a regular employee, the SEC will likely not subject your dealings to special scrutiny, especially since lots of your colleagues will likely trade your company's shares at this point in time. And if you definitely hold insider info (for example, if you are intimately involved with the acquisition talks), you will likely have had a very serious warning about insider trading and know what you can and what you cannot do. Nevertheless, it's better to be careful here.\""},{"docid":"388718","title":"","text":"\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\""},{"docid":"265111","title":"","text":"This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out."},{"docid":"538260","title":"","text":"What's your basis? If you have just made a 50% gain, maybe you should cash out a portion and hold the rest. Don't be greedy, but don't pass up an opportunity either."},{"docid":"63176","title":"","text":"I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit."},{"docid":"252547","title":"","text":"\"This is but one opinion. Seek others before your act. \"\"When someone puts a million dollars in your hand, close your hand.\"\" A 50% gain in two weeks is huge.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"68515\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Here is one \\\"\\\"other consideration\\\"\\\": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can mean that you have insider information that you legally cannot act on in many jurisdictions. If you are just a regular employee, the SEC will likely not subject your dealings to special scrutiny, especially since lots of your colleagues will likely trade your company's shares at this point in time. And if you definitely hold insider info (for example, if you are intimately involved with the acquisition talks), you will likely have had a very serious warning about insider trading and know what you can and what you cannot do. Nevertheless, it's better to be careful here.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"388718\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \\\"\\\"should\\\"\\\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \\\"\\\"sure-fire\\\"\\\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \\\"\\\"know\\\"\\\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"265111\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"538260\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"What's your basis? If you have just made a 50% gain, maybe you should cash out a portion and hold the rest. Don't be greedy, but don't pass up an opportunity either.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"63176\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"252547\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is but one opinion. Seek others before your act. \\\"\\\"When someone puts a million dollars in your hand, close your hand.\\\"\\\" A 50% gain in two weeks is huge.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"484307","title":"","text":"\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"580534","title":"","text":"It is a very complex question to answer and it really depends. However, here are some points to consider and verify with your accountant or tax expert. First, if you exercise now, the downside is that you may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) based on the theoretical gain on the stock (current price minus your strike price) when you file your tax return. The other obvious downside is that if the company goes nowhere, you are stuck with the stock and potentially lose money. The benefit is that the clock starts ticking for long-term capital gains so if you sell after 1 year from the exercise date (or your company gets sold) then the gain would be taxed as long-term capital gain which is taxed at a lower rate. If your company were to get sold, the gains are not necessarily taxed as ordinary income. If it is a cash transaction then most likely (unless you have exercised and held the stock for over a year). However, if it is a stock sale, then you may end up getting stock of the company that acquires your company. In that situation, the tax event would be when you sell the new shares vs. the time of company sale. Finally, whether to exercise or not also depends on how you feel about the prospects of the company. If you think they will be sold or of more value down the road then exercising makes sense. If you are not sure then you could hedge your bets by only exercising a portion of it. You should definitely consult with a financial advisor or a tax consultant regarding these matters."},{"docid":"474384","title":"","text":"From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution."},{"docid":"232540","title":"","text":"Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock)."},{"docid":"102436","title":"","text":"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started."},{"docid":"93215","title":"","text":"\"Typically, there are three ways an acquisition is financed. What is used is called the \"\"consideration\"\". 1.) Cash - Existing cash on the balance sheet is used. Think of it like purchasing something with your debit card. 2.) Stock - This a bit more complicated. The acquiring company issues new shares and exchanges those shares for shares of the acquiree. Because new shares are issued, this can have a dilutive effect on the stock price of the acquirer. However, it can have an accretive effect if enough synergistic value between the two companies is realized and/or expected. 3.) Debt - Basically like taking out a loan. The \"\"consideration\"\" for a deal is often reported, as you read in your article. Most deals are a combination of cash/stock/debt. (Debt is often referred to as \"\"cash\"\" - i.e. if you take out a loan, you are essentially receiving cash.) When it comes to which is best to use, there are quantitative analyses for that - with a specific focus on the acquirer's EPS (Earnings per share) post-deal. The factors that are considered are the forgone interest on cash, the additional interest gained from taking on debt, and the dilutive effects of issuing new stock. There is no right answer for which is best, as there are multiple different factors and circumstances involved across M&A deals. Each company has different borrowing rates and synergistic value expected from their deals. One big factor is the timing and stock price of both companies during the deal. If the acquirer is trading at an all time high and the acquiree is at an all time low, then perhaps an all-stock deal would be advantageous to the buyer. Typically, companies want to avoid stock deals because they are the most dilutive.\""},{"docid":"424641","title":"","text":"No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies. From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold. If you can adequately identify the shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale."},{"docid":"547553","title":"","text":"\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"566553","title":"","text":"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc."},{"docid":"432727","title":"","text":"\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\""},{"docid":"167151","title":"","text":"Stop order is shorter term for stop-loss order. The point being that is intended as a protective measure. A buy stop order would be used to limit losses when an investor has sold a stock short. (Meaning that they have borrowed stock and sold it, in hopes that they can take advantage of a decline in the stock's price by replacing the borrowed stock later at a cheaper price. The idea is to limit losses due to a rising stock price.) Meanwhile, a sell stop order would be used to limit losses on a stock that an investor actually owns, by selling it before the price declines further. The important thing to keep in mind about stop orders is that they turn into market orders when the stop price is reached. This means that they will be filled at the best available price when the order is actually executed. In fast moving markets, this can be a price that is quite different from the stop price. A limit order allows an investor to ensure that they do not buy/sell a stock at more/less than the specified amount. The thing to keep in mind is that a limit order is not guaranteed to execute. A stop-limit order is a combination of a stop-loss order and limit order, in that it becomes a limit order (instead of a market order) when the stop price is reached. Links to definitions: Stop order Stop-limit order Limit order Market order"},{"docid":"393842","title":"","text":"I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope."},{"docid":"573077","title":"","text":"\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""},{"docid":"589127","title":"","text":"\"There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being \"\"locked up\"\" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is \"\"just the beginning\"\" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be.\""},{"docid":"226496","title":"","text":"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"},{"docid":"506238","title":"","text":"1) You ignore dividends. You can hold your 10 million shares and never sell them and still get cash to live on if the security pays dividends. McDonalds stock pays 3% in dividends (a year). If you owned 10 million shares of McDonalds you would get 75,000 every three months. I am sure you could live on 25,000 a month. 2) Enron was an energy company. They sold energy and made a profit (or rather were supposed to). Enron didn't make their money by selling stock. McDonalds makes their money by selling hamburgers (and other food). The income of a company comes from their customers, not from selling stock. 3) IF you sold all of your 10 million shares within a short time frame it, likely, would drive the price of the stock down. But you do not need a billion dollars to live on. If you sold 1000 shares each month you would have plenty for buying cars and pizza. Selling 1000 shares may drive the price of the stock down for a minute or two. But the rest of the transactions, for that security made the same day, would quickly obscure the effect you had on the stock. 4) When you buy stock your money does not (usualy) go to the company. If I were to buy 100 shares of McDonalds, McDonalds would not get $11670.That money is (usually) paid to a 'Market Maker' who, in turn, will use the cash to buy MCD from other individual shareholders (presumably for less than 116.70 a share)."},{"docid":"596518","title":"","text":"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state."},{"docid":"340730","title":"","text":"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well..."},{"docid":"226980","title":"","text":"\"It is not a \"\"riskless\"\" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these \"\"subject to...\"\" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a \"\"sure deal\"\": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price.\""},{"docid":"154611","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"295511","title":"","text":"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000."},{"docid":"457059","title":"","text":"\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\""},{"docid":"235391","title":"","text":"\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\""},{"docid":"554568","title":"","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."},{"docid":"239769","title":"","text":"I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements. To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits). One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes."},{"docid":"319568","title":"","text":"\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\""},{"docid":"287923","title":"","text":"\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\""},{"docid":"438121","title":"","text":"\"During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock. The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to \"\"Motors Liquidation Company,\"\" and the new company was named \"\"General Motors Company.\"\" The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly. The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%. In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake. By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors. And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company. The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member. There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not \"\"voting\"\" and \"\"non-voting\"\" classes of GM stock. All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:\""},{"docid":"349147","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"87331","title":"","text":"As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"484307\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \\\"\\\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\\\"\\\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"580534\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It is a very complex question to answer and it really depends. However, here are some points to consider and verify with your accountant or tax expert. First, if you exercise now, the downside is that you may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) based on the theoretical gain on the stock (current price minus your strike price) when you file your tax return. The other obvious downside is that if the company goes nowhere, you are stuck with the stock and potentially lose money. The benefit is that the clock starts ticking for long-term capital gains so if you sell after 1 year from the exercise date (or your company gets sold) then the gain would be taxed as long-term capital gain which is taxed at a lower rate. If your company were to get sold, the gains are not necessarily taxed as ordinary income. If it is a cash transaction then most likely (unless you have exercised and held the stock for over a year). However, if it is a stock sale, then you may end up getting stock of the company that acquires your company. In that situation, the tax event would be when you sell the new shares vs. the time of company sale. Finally, whether to exercise or not also depends on how you feel about the prospects of the company. If you think they will be sold or of more value down the road then exercising makes sense. If you are not sure then you could hedge your bets by only exercising a portion of it. You should definitely consult with a financial advisor or a tax consultant regarding these matters.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"474384\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"232540\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"102436\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"93215\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Typically, there are three ways an acquisition is financed. What is used is called the \\\"\\\"consideration\\\"\\\". 1.) Cash - Existing cash on the balance sheet is used. Think of it like purchasing something with your debit card. 2.) Stock - This a bit more complicated. The acquiring company issues new shares and exchanges those shares for shares of the acquiree. Because new shares are issued, this can have a dilutive effect on the stock price of the acquirer. However, it can have an accretive effect if enough synergistic value between the two companies is realized and/or expected. 3.) Debt - Basically like taking out a loan. The \\\"\\\"consideration\\\"\\\" for a deal is often reported, as you read in your article. Most deals are a combination of cash/stock/debt. (Debt is often referred to as \\\"\\\"cash\\\"\\\" - i.e. if you take out a loan, you are essentially receiving cash.) When it comes to which is best to use, there are quantitative analyses for that - with a specific focus on the acquirer's EPS (Earnings per share) post-deal. The factors that are considered are the forgone interest on cash, the additional interest gained from taking on debt, and the dilutive effects of issuing new stock. There is no right answer for which is best, as there are multiple different factors and circumstances involved across M&A deals. Each company has different borrowing rates and synergistic value expected from their deals. One big factor is the timing and stock price of both companies during the deal. If the acquirer is trading at an all time high and the acquiree is at an all time low, then perhaps an all-stock deal would be advantageous to the buyer. Typically, companies want to avoid stock deals because they are the most dilutive.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"424641\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies. From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold. If you can adequately identify the shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"547553\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" and the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \\\"\\\"best bid and best ask\\\"\\\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"566553\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"432727\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \\\"\\\"special\\\"\\\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"167151\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Stop order is shorter term for stop-loss order. The point being that is intended as a protective measure. A buy stop order would be used to limit losses when an investor has sold a stock short. (Meaning that they have borrowed stock and sold it, in hopes that they can take advantage of a decline in the stock's price by replacing the borrowed stock later at a cheaper price. The idea is to limit losses due to a rising stock price.) Meanwhile, a sell stop order would be used to limit losses on a stock that an investor actually owns, by selling it before the price declines further. The important thing to keep in mind about stop orders is that they turn into market orders when the stop price is reached. This means that they will be filled at the best available price when the order is actually executed. In fast moving markets, this can be a price that is quite different from the stop price. A limit order allows an investor to ensure that they do not buy/sell a stock at more/less than the specified amount. The thing to keep in mind is that a limit order is not guaranteed to execute. A stop-limit order is a combination of a stop-loss order and limit order, in that it becomes a limit order (instead of a market order) when the stop price is reached. Links to definitions: Stop order Stop-limit order Limit order Market order\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"393842\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"573077\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Being \\\"\\\"Long\\\"\\\" something means you own it. Being \\\"\\\"Short\\\"\\\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \\\"\\\"strike price\\\"\\\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \\\"\\\"contract\\\"\\\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \\\"\\\"free\\\"\\\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \\\"\\\"Sunny Days in Omaha\\\"\\\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \\\"\\\"Sunny days in Omaha\\\"\\\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"589127\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being \\\"\\\"locked up\\\"\\\" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is \\\"\\\"just the beginning\\\"\\\" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"226496\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"506238\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"1) You ignore dividends. You can hold your 10 million shares and never sell them and still get cash to live on if the security pays dividends. McDonalds stock pays 3% in dividends (a year). If you owned 10 million shares of McDonalds you would get 75,000 every three months. I am sure you could live on 25,000 a month. 2) Enron was an energy company. They sold energy and made a profit (or rather were supposed to). Enron didn't make their money by selling stock. McDonalds makes their money by selling hamburgers (and other food). The income of a company comes from their customers, not from selling stock. 3) IF you sold all of your 10 million shares within a short time frame it, likely, would drive the price of the stock down. But you do not need a billion dollars to live on. If you sold 1000 shares each month you would have plenty for buying cars and pizza. Selling 1000 shares may drive the price of the stock down for a minute or two. But the rest of the transactions, for that security made the same day, would quickly obscure the effect you had on the stock. 4) When you buy stock your money does not (usualy) go to the company. If I were to buy 100 shares of McDonalds, McDonalds would not get $11670.That money is (usually) paid to a 'Market Maker' who, in turn, will use the cash to buy MCD from other individual shareholders (presumably for less than 116.70 a share).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"596518\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"340730\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"226980\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It is not a \\\"\\\"riskless\\\"\\\" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these \\\"\\\"subject to...\\\"\\\" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a \\\"\\\"sure deal\\\"\\\": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"154611\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"295511\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"457059\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \\\"\\\"deep in the money\\\"\\\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\\\"\\\"A Primer on Wash Sales\\\"\\\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \\\"\\\"play it safe\\\"\\\" position: \\\"\\\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\\\"\\\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \\\"\\\"hell no\\\"\\\" to \\\"\\\"only if blatant.\\\"\\\" If you can get an \\\"\\\"official\\\"\\\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"235391\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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\\\"\\\".\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"554568\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"239769\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements. To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits). One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"319568\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \\\"\\\"true\\\"\\\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"287923\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \\\"\\\"realized loss\\\"\\\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"438121\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock. The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to \\\"\\\"Motors Liquidation Company,\\\"\\\" and the new company was named \\\"\\\"General Motors Company.\\\"\\\" The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly. The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%. In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake. By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors. And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company. The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member. There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not \\\"\\\"voting\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"non-voting\\\"\\\" classes of GM stock. All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"349147\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"87331\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":87,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2566"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Purpose of having good credit when you are well-off?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"40665","title":"","text":"\"Your dad may have paid an \"\"opportunity cost\"\" for that outright purchase. If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money. If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible. My own father is a multi-millionaire (not myself) and he could afford to have paid for his house outright. He didn't though. To do so would have meant cashing in on several investments. I don't know his interest rate but let's say it was 2.5%. If he invests that million dollars into something he expects to get a 7% return on in the same period, then he would make more money by borrowing the money. Hence, he would be paying an opportunity cost. Assuming you need to work, some jobs will also do background or credit checks. Credit cards can be used by well off people to actually make them money by offering rewards (compared to straight cash transactions). The better your credit history, the better the cards/rewards you can get. You can build that credit history better by having these loans and making timely payments.\""},{"docid":"331423","title":"","text":"Credit in general having no significant change between an income level or net worth is due to the economic reciprocity principle inherent in many societies. Although some areas of credit may be more admirable to those who aren't as well-off, such as car loans, the overall understanding of credit is a trust agreement between someone getting something (e.g., credit card user) and someone giving something (e.g., bank or company). Credit doesn't have to mean just money -- it can be anything of value, including tangible materials, services, etc. The fact is that a credit is a common element in most economical systems, and as such its use is not really variable between income levels/etc. Sure, there is variance in things like credit line amounts and rewards, but the overall gist is the same for everyone -- borrowing, paying back, benefits, etc. All of these exchanges form the same understanding we all know and follow. Credit brings along with it trust -- the form represented in a score. While not everyone may depend entirely on credit, and no one should use credit as a means of getting by entirely (money), everyone can understand and reap the benefits of a system whether they make 10K a year of 10M a year. This is the general idea behind credit in the broadest sense possible. Besides, just because one has or makes more money doesn't mean they don't prefer to get good deals. Nobody should like being taken advantage of, and if credit can help, anyone can establish trust."},{"docid":"322046","title":"","text":"there are several reasons you might want good credit even if you could afford to pay for all your expenses in cash. having pointed out all the above reasons to have good credit, it is probably worth noting that many people with good credit choose to not borrow simply because they are more comfortable with the risks of not borrowing (e.g. inflation risk), than they are with the risks of borrowing (e.g. investment volatility)."},{"docid":"219181","title":"","text":"Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month."},{"docid":"435716","title":"","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."},{"docid":"218849","title":"","text":"\"I have never had a credit card and have been able to function perfectly well without one for 30 years. I borrowed money twice, once for a school loan that was countersigned, and once for my mortgage. In both cases my application was accepted. You only need to have \"\"good credit\"\" if you want to borrow money. Credit scores are usually only relevant for people with irregular income or a past history of delinquency. Assuming the debtor has no history of delinquency, the only thing the bank really cares about is the income level of the applicant. In the old days it could be difficult to rent a car without a credit car and this was the only major problem for me before about 2010. Usually I would have to make a cash deposit of $400 or something like that before a rental agency would rent me a car. This is no longer a problem and I never get asked for a deposit anymore to rent cars. Other than car rentals, I never had a problem not having a credit card.\""},{"docid":"128465","title":"","text":"Credit is very important even if you are wealthy. One thing you may not realize is that rich people typically have comparatively little cash on hand. If they're smart, most of their assets are not liquid - they're tied up in safe, long-term investments. They use credit for their day-to-day expenses and pay it off from the dividends on their investments (which might only come in once a quarter). There are also tax advantages to using credit. If a rich person wanted a new car, he'd be smarter leasing it for his business (immediate write-off of the lease payments on taxes) versus buying it (depreciation over several years plus property tax liability in some states). There are more elaborate tax dodges but the point is that buying a car outright is the worst option in terms of tax avoidance. Another way the rich (mis) use credit is so that they don't risk their own money on business ventures. Let's say I have $1,000,000 in my personal bank account, and I want to buy a business that costs $1M. If I am dumb, I clean out my bank account and put all my money in the business. I get 100% of the profits, but I also bear 100% of the risk. If I'm smart, I loan 200K of my own money in the business and put the rest someplace safe, and get a loan from a bank for the other 800K. If the business succeeds, the bank gets their money back plus interest. If it fails, the business declares bankruptcy and the bank eats the 800k loss. If I structured the debt right, my personal loan to the failed business gets paid back first when the company is liquidated, and the bank gets whatever is left over (if anything). The most of my own money I can possibly lose is 200k, and probably it's closer to zero if I have a good accountant."},{"docid":"82986","title":"","text":"A $250K earner might have $4M in retirement savings and $500K in available funds, but doesn't wish to spend all his liquidity on the house. In general, a house might cost 2-3 times one's annual income. It would take many years to get that saved up. They might want to have the house sooner. It all goes back to choice, priorities, personal preference."},{"docid":"494156","title":"","text":"Credit scores, or at least components of them, can sometimes factor into how much you pay for car insurance. Source: Consumer Reports: How a Credit Score Increases your Premium"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"40665\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Your dad may have paid an \\\"\\\"opportunity cost\\\"\\\" for that outright purchase. If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money. If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible. My own father is a multi-millionaire (not myself) and he could afford to have paid for his house outright. He didn't though. To do so would have meant cashing in on several investments. I don't know his interest rate but let's say it was 2.5%. If he invests that million dollars into something he expects to get a 7% return on in the same period, then he would make more money by borrowing the money. Hence, he would be paying an opportunity cost. Assuming you need to work, some jobs will also do background or credit checks. Credit cards can be used by well off people to actually make them money by offering rewards (compared to straight cash transactions). The better your credit history, the better the cards/rewards you can get. You can build that credit history better by having these loans and making timely payments.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"331423\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Credit in general having no significant change between an income level or net worth is due to the economic reciprocity principle inherent in many societies. Although some areas of credit may be more admirable to those who aren't as well-off, such as car loans, the overall understanding of credit is a trust agreement between someone getting something (e.g., credit card user) and someone giving something (e.g., bank or company). Credit doesn't have to mean just money -- it can be anything of value, including tangible materials, services, etc. The fact is that a credit is a common element in most economical systems, and as such its use is not really variable between income levels/etc. Sure, there is variance in things like credit line amounts and rewards, but the overall gist is the same for everyone -- borrowing, paying back, benefits, etc. All of these exchanges form the same understanding we all know and follow. Credit brings along with it trust -- the form represented in a score. While not everyone may depend entirely on credit, and no one should use credit as a means of getting by entirely (money), everyone can understand and reap the benefits of a system whether they make 10K a year of 10M a year. This is the general idea behind credit in the broadest sense possible. Besides, just because one has or makes more money doesn't mean they don't prefer to get good deals. Nobody should like being taken advantage of, and if credit can help, anyone can establish trust.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"322046\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"there are several reasons you might want good credit even if you could afford to pay for all your expenses in cash. having pointed out all the above reasons to have good credit, it is probably worth noting that many people with good credit choose to not borrow simply because they are more comfortable with the risks of not borrowing (e.g. inflation risk), than they are with the risks of borrowing (e.g. investment volatility).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"219181\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"435716\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"218849\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I have never had a credit card and have been able to function perfectly well without one for 30 years. I borrowed money twice, once for a school loan that was countersigned, and once for my mortgage. In both cases my application was accepted. You only need to have \\\"\\\"good credit\\\"\\\" if you want to borrow money. Credit scores are usually only relevant for people with irregular income or a past history of delinquency. Assuming the debtor has no history of delinquency, the only thing the bank really cares about is the income level of the applicant. In the old days it could be difficult to rent a car without a credit car and this was the only major problem for me before about 2010. Usually I would have to make a cash deposit of $400 or something like that before a rental agency would rent me a car. This is no longer a problem and I never get asked for a deposit anymore to rent cars. Other than car rentals, I never had a problem not having a credit card.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"128465\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Credit is very important even if you are wealthy. One thing you may not realize is that rich people typically have comparatively little cash on hand. If they're smart, most of their assets are not liquid - they're tied up in safe, long-term investments. They use credit for their day-to-day expenses and pay it off from the dividends on their investments (which might only come in once a quarter). There are also tax advantages to using credit. If a rich person wanted a new car, he'd be smarter leasing it for his business (immediate write-off of the lease payments on taxes) versus buying it (depreciation over several years plus property tax liability in some states). There are more elaborate tax dodges but the point is that buying a car outright is the worst option in terms of tax avoidance. Another way the rich (mis) use credit is so that they don't risk their own money on business ventures. Let's say I have $1,000,000 in my personal bank account, and I want to buy a business that costs $1M. If I am dumb, I clean out my bank account and put all my money in the business. I get 100% of the profits, but I also bear 100% of the risk. If I'm smart, I loan 200K of my own money in the business and put the rest someplace safe, and get a loan from a bank for the other 800K. If the business succeeds, the bank gets their money back plus interest. If it fails, the business declares bankruptcy and the bank eats the 800k loss. If I structured the debt right, my personal loan to the failed business gets paid back first when the company is liquidated, and the bank gets whatever is left over (if anything). The most of my own money I can possibly lose is 200k, and probably it's closer to zero if I have a good accountant.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"82986\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"A $250K earner might have $4M in retirement savings and $500K in available funds, but doesn't wish to spend all his liquidity on the house. In general, a house might cost 2-3 times one's annual income. It would take many years to get that saved up. They might want to have the house sooner. It all goes back to choice, priorities, personal preference.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"494156\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Credit scores, or at least components of them, can sometimes factor into how much you pay for car insurance. Source: Consumer Reports: How a Credit Score Increases your Premium\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"585288","title":"","text":"I also had a student loan and glad you are taking a good look on interest rate as it really makes a huge difference. One of the strategies I followed was since my credit improved as I stepped out of school. I took advantage of a good 0 percent credit card. I applied for discover and got a decent credit limit. There are 2 particular things you are looking for in a credit card in this situation Usually the initial $0 transaction charge is only for a couple of months so ensure you take advantage of that. What is the benefit: Imagine being able to pay off that higher interest rate balance with 0% and not have to worry about it immediately. That way you save on the interest you would be paying and stress as well Watch out for: Although you have to ensure that you do payoff the money you paid through the 0 percent credit card ( which may have been put off for a year or even 15 months or so) other wise you may have to pay it all at once as the offer is expiring. Note: for credit cards ensure to note when the 0% is expiring as that is usually not mentioned on the statement and you may have to call the customer service. I was in a similar situation and was able to pay it all off fairly quickly. I am sure you will as well."},{"docid":"319276","title":"","text":"First things first, its always good to set the records straight. When you are trying to clear your debt do them one by one and ask the collection agent that you would pay in full only if the records would be deleted from your credit history and most of the collection agencies are happy to take it off your credit report as they are getting the money. This would work generally only when you pay the full amount. I can guarantee you this because I have tried it myself after hearing about it from my friends. If you have already paid whole amount already then records of your payments generally will not be available after 2 years with any banks even the big ones like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. That means if they don't have the records no body else would because its a burden as your payment is written off. You can file a dispute to credit bureaus for your payment history and if they couldn't provide you the history they have to take your record off your history even they know that you have delinquent history because they don't have enough proof to confirm that. And when you file a dispute its always good to file it by paper as they have to write back and you can ask hard copies of the proofs which are very difficult to get. One more thing if you want to dispute it might take couple of months atleast and you need to have patience because you already might have known how important credit history is."},{"docid":"194944","title":"","text":"\"From the card issuer's point of view, the purpose of balance transfers is very simple. A credit card company wants you to owe them more money, so they will make more profit getting more interest payments from you. To do that, they will offer an (apparently) good deal to transfer the debt that you owe to other companies onto their card. The deal may superficially look good to you, because it offers a low interest rate for a limited time period, etc. But never forget that its real purpose is to be a good deal for the card company, not for you. Of course, credit card companies target these deals at their \"\"typical\"\" customers. They have to tolerate a few \"\"smart\"\" customers who actually make them no money at all, by always paying off their card balance before any interest is due, never using their card to draw cash from an ATM (which has no interest-free loan period), never using their card for overseas transactions that incur fees and/or poor currency exchange rates, etc. Your financial objective should be to make yourself one of the customers the card company doesn't want - but \"\"only paying off the minimum balance every month\"\" is exactly the wrong way to do that!\""},{"docid":"344052","title":"","text":"Everyone else seems to have focused (rightly so) on the negatives of credit cards (high interest rates) and why it is important to pay them off before interest starts accruing. Only Marin's answer briefly touched on rewards. To me, this is the real purpose of credit cards in today's age. Most good rewards cards can get you anywhere from 1-2% cash back on ALL purchases, and sometimes more on other categories. Again, assuming you can pay the balance in full each month, and you are good at budgeting money, using a credit card is an easy way to basically discount 1-2% of all of the spending you put on your card. AGAIN - this only works to your advantage if you pay off the credit card in full; using the above example of 20% interest, that's about 1.6% interest if the interest compounds monthly, which wipes out your return on rewards if you just go one month without paying off the balance."},{"docid":"438883","title":"","text":"Boss: We found you were taking orders without a credit card. Me: The system won't allow you to save an order without a credit card. (it won't) Boss: Well, we have you on tape taking orders without a credit card. Me: That is literally impossible. Show me the orders and the call. Boss: I don't have to do that. (choice words by myself before I quit on the spot without letting him have any more words, it was my first temp job) They wanted to lay people off without paying unemployment. I had three other offers waiting for me at the time. Double irony, when I went to pick up my last check, they begged me to stay (because I could take reservations faster than your mama) and said I would only be laid off for a week. This was the company Reserve America in the 90s. ***** Boss: Well, you worked here for 2 years and you could become a manager. Me: Thanks, but this is something I have to do. Boss: Ok, good luck little man. (left to join military)"},{"docid":"500261","title":"","text":"FICO is a financial services company, whose customers are financial services companies. Their products are for the benefit of their customers, not consumers. The purpose of the credit score system is two-fold. First, the credit score is intended to make it easy for lending institutions (FICO's customers) to assess the risk of loans that they make. This is probably based on science, although the FICO studies and even the FICO score formula are proprietary secrets. The second purpose of the credit score is to incentivize consumers into borrowing money. And they have done a great job of that. If you think you might need a loan in the future, perhaps a mortgage or a car loan, you need a credit score. And the only way to get a credit score is to start borrowing money now that you don't need. Yes, someone with a good income and a long history of paying utility bills on time would be a great credit risk for a mortgage. However, that person will have no credit score, and therefore be declared by FICO as a bad credit risk. On the other hand, someone with a low income, who struggles, but succeeds, to make the minimum payment on their credit card, would have a better credit score. The advice offered to the first person is start borrowing money now, even though you don't need it. I'm not anti-credit card. I use a credit card responsibly, paying it off in full every month. I use it for the convenience. I don't worry at all about my credit score, but I've been told it is great. However, there are some people that cannot use a credit card responsibly. The temptation is too great. Perhaps they are like problem gamblers, I don't know. But FICO and the financial services industry have created a system that makes a credit card a necessity in many ways. These are the people that get hurt in the current system."},{"docid":"504293","title":"","text":"This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge)."},{"docid":"72289","title":"","text":"Correct. By putting expenses on to a credit card which does not charge interest during the grace period, and paying that balance every month, in effect you earn interest on money you've already spent. However, first, savings account interest is something like .05% right now depending on your bank. Yeah it's money, but seriously, that's 4 cents per month on $1000. Second, two things can make this very wrong. If you carry a balance, you'll pay much more in interest than you'd get from practically any investment you could make with the cash in the meantime. Second, a debit card can be used to get cash you already have from an ATM (not everyone takes credit, you know), and it'll cost you little or nothing. Use a credit card for the same purpose and you're paying 40% from the second the money comes out of the machine. Also correct. Rewards cards earn you more the more they're used. That's because the card issuer makes money based on usage; they get 3% of each transaction. They're happy to turn 1% of that, up to a limit or subject to a spending floor, back around to you. Again, check the terms and conditions. Most cards have a limit on total rewards. Many of them also have fees, either while you hold the card or when you try to redeem the rewards. Look for a card with high limits or no limits on rewards from spending, and with no annual fee or reward redemption fee. In addition to the above, you build good credit history with good spending patterns. However, your credit score can fluctuate wildly, because on one day you have very low leverage (percent of credit limit used), and on the next you've bought $200 in groceries and so your leverage went up 20% on a card with a $1000 limit. Leverage under 10% is good, leverage under 40% is OK and leverage over that starts looking bad. With a $1000 limit, with you maxing it out and then paying it off, your credit score can fluctuate by 30 points on any given day."},{"docid":"326094","title":"","text":"\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""},{"docid":"550166","title":"","text":"No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted."},{"docid":"297274","title":"","text":"\"I would recommend putting it on a credit card, just not your current credit card. Run a Google search for \"\"credit cards with good signup bonuses\"\" and you will potentially come across these links: http://www.cardrates.com/advice/11-best-signup-bonus-credit-cards/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/top-credit-cards/best-credit-card-offers/ There are cards out there which can qualify you to: The $150 back on a $500 purchase is an instant 30% ROI. The best stock options couldn't guarantee you that kind of return. You will instantly meet the criteria and get $150 + $25 (1% cash back on the full $2,500) The only stipulation is that in order to fully benefit from the rewards, you must pay off the card in full when your bill comes in or else you will pay steep interest. After a year or so you can cancel the card. If you want, sign up for two or three cards and split the payment. Reap the rewards from multiple credit cards. I wish I had done this with my college tuition; it was a tough pill to swallow when I forked over $3,000 at the registrar's office for one semester :-( I had the potential to realize a savings of $900 in one semester alone. Would have been nice to apply such a kickback against buying my books. If you work things out correctly then you can save 30% ($750) on your total purchase. That's one way to not run yourself dry. Disclaimer: By following these steps you will be triggering at least one hard inquiry against your credit. Each hard inquiry has the potential to lower your credit rating. If you do not plan to use your score to apply for any major loans (e.g. car or house) then this reduction in credit will have basically no impact on your day-to-day life. Assuming you continue using your credit responsibly then your credit should just bounce right back to where it was in no time. I know there are many people out there that cherish their score and relish in the fact that it is so high but it's for moments like these that make it worthwhile to \"\"spend\"\" your credit score. It's an inanimate number whose sole purpose is to be \"\"spent\"\" in times like these.\""},{"docid":"30913","title":"","text":"\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \"\"appropriate\"\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \"\"flight risk\"\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\""},{"docid":"498881","title":"","text":"Paying off your mortgage early being good is a myth. It is great for the chronic overspenders to have their mortgage paid off so when they rack up credit card bills and get behind, well they still hae a place to stay. But for those who are more logical with their money paying off your mortgage early in current conditions makes no sense. You can get a 30 year loan well below 4%. Discounting taxes for your average family you would have a rate floating below 3%. So reasons that paying off your mortgage should be almost LAST (given current low long-term interest rates): The first thing you should do is take care of any high interest debt. I would say that anything more than 7-8%, including all credit card debt should be focus #1. putting money into your retirement savings is #1. You will earn way more than 3% over the long-run. you can earn a higher return in the market. Even with a very conservative portfolio you can clear 5-6%, which will still clear more than 3% after taxes. for those who say you can't be sure about the market... well if the market did bad for 30 years in a row no one will have money and the house will also be worthless. if a disaster happens to your house and you own it, your money is gone. In many cases you would be able to declare bankruptcy and let the bank take the property as is. there are just too many examples but if you are paying off your house early, you lose the flexible/liquid money that you now have tied up in the house. Now the reasons for paying down your mortgage are really easy too: you don't trust your spending habits you want to move up in houses and you want to make sure that you have at least 20% down on future house to skip PMI."},{"docid":"397538","title":"","text":"\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"230297","title":"","text":"\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \"\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\"\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\""},{"docid":"88942","title":"","text":"\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\""},{"docid":"533621","title":"","text":"\"Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries. One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US. The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported). You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them. Most of the banks offer special deals for \"\"New Canadians\"\". You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much. Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active. No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit). You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you. For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card. Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods.\""},{"docid":"91183","title":"","text":"\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\""},{"docid":"23949","title":"","text":"\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \"\"kickback\"\" or charge a \"\"fee\"\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\""},{"docid":"375780","title":"","text":"\"Paying off a loan early isn't a bad thing. Having a credit card for 6 months and then closing it is probably unneeded; pay it off and then keep it as an emergency card. The key is debt:available credit ratio. Look at this article for example which explains the different elements; the only one you're affecting here is the second, your debt load. If you're not planning on asking for another loan in the next six months, none of this really matters - assuming you are paying it off for sure, in six months, your debt will be gone and your credit score recovered from any hit it takes (and if you get a $1500 credit card and only put $300 on it, it might actually improve your credit). But having an open $1500 credit card with a 0 balance will probably improve your credit rating, unless you have a really high amount of available credit. It will improve your debt/credit ratio (ie, total $ you owe divided by total $ you could put on your CCs/revolving credit). This is all aside from the \"\"is it a good idea to borrow money for a 3 month vacation before starting working\"\", which the answer is \"\"Well, not exactly\"\". That's not from a credit perspective, just from a living within your means perspective. If you have a firm job that will easily pay off the vacation, it's probably not a bad thing, but definitely a certain number of people will take this and end up in 'spending bad habits' that last their life. Be aware of that, and if you're just loaning yourself money from the future, make sure you understand the terms of that loan... and are certain you can pay it off.\""},{"docid":"300990","title":"","text":"Note: the question is tagged united kingdom, this is a UK focussed answer practices elsewhere may be different). A balance transfer moves your debt from one credit card to another. This can be a good way to get a debt onto a lower (often zero) interest rate. There will usually be a transfer fee but with a good balance transfer deal the effective interest rate even after taking the fee into account can be very good and there are even some deals with 0% interest and no fee. Indeed if you keep on top of things credit cards are often the cheapest way to borrow. Normally a balance transfer is done to a new card that is applied for specifically for the purpose but sometimes it can make sense to transfer a balance to an existing card. However to take advantage of this you need discipline. You need to make absoloutely sure that you fully comply with the rules of the deal and in particular that you pay at least the minimum payment on time. You should also be aware that the rate will usually jump up at the end of the interest free period, you could do another balance transfer but assuming you will be able to do that is risky as it depends on what market conditions and your credit rating look like at the time. Ideally you should have a plan for paying off the card before the interest free period expires. In general you should be aiming to pay down your debts. Living beyond your means is very bad and carrying debt long term should only be done if you have an extremely good reason. You should regard the balance transfer as a tool to help you clear your debts quicker, not as a way to avoid paying them. If you go on a spending spree after your balance transfer you will just have dug yourself deeper in debt. See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards for more on the techniques and the current best cards."},{"docid":"289231","title":"","text":"The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!"},{"docid":"393866","title":"","text":"\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\""},{"docid":"217804","title":"","text":"The whole point of a credit report and, by extension, a credit score, is to demonstrate (and judge) your ability to repay borrowed funds. Everything stems from that goal; available credit, payment history, collections, etc all serve to demonstrate whether or not you personally are a good investment for lenders to pursue. Revolving credit balances are tricky because they are more complicated than fixed loans (for the rest of this answer, I'll just talk about credit cards, though it also applies to lines of credit such as overdraft protection for checking accounts, HELOCs, and other such products). Having a large available balance relative to your income means that at any time you could suddenly drown yourself in debt. Having no credit cards means you don't have experience managing them (and personal finances are governed largely by behavior, meaning experience is invaluable). Having credit cards but carrying a high balance means you know how to borrow money, but not pay it back. Having credit cards but carrying no balance means you don't know how to borrow money (or you don't trust yourself to pay it back). Ideally, lenders will see a pattern of you borrowing a portion of the available credit, and then paying it down. Generally that means utilizing up to 30% of your available credit. Even if you maintain the balance in that range without paying it off completely, it at least shows that you have restraint, and are able to stop spending at a limit you personally set, rather than the limit the bank sets for you. So, to answer your question, 0% balance on your credit cards is bad because you might as well not have them. Use it, pay it off, rinse and repeat, and it will demonstrate your ability to exercise self control as well as your ability to repay your debts."},{"docid":"320246","title":"","text":"I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name."},{"docid":"481822","title":"","text":"I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."},{"docid":"305954","title":"","text":"\"There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions. The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them. I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them. The article below does state that Mastercard does have a \"\"stop recurring payment\"\" flag. Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice. Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers\""},{"docid":"47441","title":"","text":"Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/"},{"docid":"208860","title":"","text":"\"When I was in high school, my mom got me a joint credit account with both of our names on it for exactly this reason. Well, that, and to have in case I found myself in some sort emergency, but it was mostly to build credit history. That account is still on my credit report (it's my oldest by a few years), and looking at the age of it, I was 17 at the time we opened it (and I think my younger sister got one around the same time). In my case, I now have an \"\"excellent\"\" credit score and my weakest area is the age of my accounts, so having that old account definitely helps me. I don't think I've really taken advantage of it, and I'm not sure if I'd really be worse off if my mom hadn't done that, but it certainly hasn't hurt. And I plan on buying a house in the next year or so, so having anything to bump up the credit score seems like a good thing.\""},{"docid":"193641","title":"","text":"\"1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old This is fairly straight forward. If you've not been exposed to borrowing for a reasonable length of time, people won't want to lend you money. They have no reason to have any confidence in your ability to repay them. As other said, it's pretty much a case of proving yourself by being good with credit over a period of time. 2. You have no active credit card accounts Credit reference agencies have to consider a variety of factors for a variety of purposes. Notably, they will be used for credit cards, unsecured loans, mortgages, and secured loans such as vehicle finance applications. These all have varying types of customer, and some will be inherently more risky than others. For instance, someone with a mortgage on a home is far more likely to make payments because they would be homeless without, however someone with a finance agreement on a car is relatively less likely to make those payments because all they stand to lose is their car. Consider that the most fruitful information the lender will get is a score and some breakdown of how it's generated, it's a very general understanding of your history. For that reason, having a wide variety of credit is very important. A good variety of credit to have would be one secured loan (e.g car finance) to get started, as well as at least one revolving unsecured credit account (e.g a credit card), and later on in your \"\"credit life\"\" an unsecured fixed term loan (e.g a loan for something which has nothing secured against it). I say the above reluctantly, because that's how I increased my credit score from 450 to 999 - first step was the car finance where in 3 months or so I changed from 450 to around 600, with a credit card I was approaching 900, and once I had an unsecured loan for 8 months I hit 999 - now I have all of the above plus a competitive mortgage and remain at 999. Whether each is mandatory to maintain 999 is debatable but based on personal experience, it seems reasonable.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"585288\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I also had a student loan and glad you are taking a good look on interest rate as it really makes a huge difference. One of the strategies I followed was since my credit improved as I stepped out of school. I took advantage of a good 0 percent credit card. I applied for discover and got a decent credit limit. There are 2 particular things you are looking for in a credit card in this situation Usually the initial $0 transaction charge is only for a couple of months so ensure you take advantage of that. What is the benefit: Imagine being able to pay off that higher interest rate balance with 0% and not have to worry about it immediately. That way you save on the interest you would be paying and stress as well Watch out for: Although you have to ensure that you do payoff the money you paid through the 0 percent credit card ( which may have been put off for a year or even 15 months or so) other wise you may have to pay it all at once as the offer is expiring. Note: for credit cards ensure to note when the 0% is expiring as that is usually not mentioned on the statement and you may have to call the customer service. I was in a similar situation and was able to pay it all off fairly quickly. I am sure you will as well.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"319276\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"First things first, its always good to set the records straight. When you are trying to clear your debt do them one by one and ask the collection agent that you would pay in full only if the records would be deleted from your credit history and most of the collection agencies are happy to take it off your credit report as they are getting the money. This would work generally only when you pay the full amount. I can guarantee you this because I have tried it myself after hearing about it from my friends. If you have already paid whole amount already then records of your payments generally will not be available after 2 years with any banks even the big ones like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. That means if they don't have the records no body else would because its a burden as your payment is written off. You can file a dispute to credit bureaus for your payment history and if they couldn't provide you the history they have to take your record off your history even they know that you have delinquent history because they don't have enough proof to confirm that. And when you file a dispute its always good to file it by paper as they have to write back and you can ask hard copies of the proofs which are very difficult to get. One more thing if you want to dispute it might take couple of months atleast and you need to have patience because you already might have known how important credit history is.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"194944\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"From the card issuer's point of view, the purpose of balance transfers is very simple. A credit card company wants you to owe them more money, so they will make more profit getting more interest payments from you. To do that, they will offer an (apparently) good deal to transfer the debt that you owe to other companies onto their card. The deal may superficially look good to you, because it offers a low interest rate for a limited time period, etc. But never forget that its real purpose is to be a good deal for the card company, not for you. Of course, credit card companies target these deals at their \\\"\\\"typical\\\"\\\" customers. They have to tolerate a few \\\"\\\"smart\\\"\\\" customers who actually make them no money at all, by always paying off their card balance before any interest is due, never using their card to draw cash from an ATM (which has no interest-free loan period), never using their card for overseas transactions that incur fees and/or poor currency exchange rates, etc. Your financial objective should be to make yourself one of the customers the card company doesn't want - but \\\"\\\"only paying off the minimum balance every month\\\"\\\" is exactly the wrong way to do that!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"344052\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Everyone else seems to have focused (rightly so) on the negatives of credit cards (high interest rates) and why it is important to pay them off before interest starts accruing. Only Marin's answer briefly touched on rewards. To me, this is the real purpose of credit cards in today's age. Most good rewards cards can get you anywhere from 1-2% cash back on ALL purchases, and sometimes more on other categories. Again, assuming you can pay the balance in full each month, and you are good at budgeting money, using a credit card is an easy way to basically discount 1-2% of all of the spending you put on your card. AGAIN - this only works to your advantage if you pay off the credit card in full; using the above example of 20% interest, that's about 1.6% interest if the interest compounds monthly, which wipes out your return on rewards if you just go one month without paying off the balance.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"438883\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Boss: We found you were taking orders without a credit card. Me: The system won't allow you to save an order without a credit card. (it won't) Boss: Well, we have you on tape taking orders without a credit card. Me: That is literally impossible. Show me the orders and the call. Boss: I don't have to do that. (choice words by myself before I quit on the spot without letting him have any more words, it was my first temp job) They wanted to lay people off without paying unemployment. I had three other offers waiting for me at the time. Double irony, when I went to pick up my last check, they begged me to stay (because I could take reservations faster than your mama) and said I would only be laid off for a week. This was the company Reserve America in the 90s. ***** Boss: Well, you worked here for 2 years and you could become a manager. Me: Thanks, but this is something I have to do. Boss: Ok, good luck little man. (left to join military)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"500261\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"FICO is a financial services company, whose customers are financial services companies. Their products are for the benefit of their customers, not consumers. The purpose of the credit score system is two-fold. First, the credit score is intended to make it easy for lending institutions (FICO's customers) to assess the risk of loans that they make. This is probably based on science, although the FICO studies and even the FICO score formula are proprietary secrets. The second purpose of the credit score is to incentivize consumers into borrowing money. And they have done a great job of that. If you think you might need a loan in the future, perhaps a mortgage or a car loan, you need a credit score. And the only way to get a credit score is to start borrowing money now that you don't need. Yes, someone with a good income and a long history of paying utility bills on time would be a great credit risk for a mortgage. However, that person will have no credit score, and therefore be declared by FICO as a bad credit risk. On the other hand, someone with a low income, who struggles, but succeeds, to make the minimum payment on their credit card, would have a better credit score. The advice offered to the first person is start borrowing money now, even though you don't need it. I'm not anti-credit card. I use a credit card responsibly, paying it off in full every month. I use it for the convenience. I don't worry at all about my credit score, but I've been told it is great. However, there are some people that cannot use a credit card responsibly. The temptation is too great. Perhaps they are like problem gamblers, I don't know. But FICO and the financial services industry have created a system that makes a credit card a necessity in many ways. These are the people that get hurt in the current system.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"504293\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"72289\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Correct. By putting expenses on to a credit card which does not charge interest during the grace period, and paying that balance every month, in effect you earn interest on money you've already spent. However, first, savings account interest is something like .05% right now depending on your bank. Yeah it's money, but seriously, that's 4 cents per month on $1000. Second, two things can make this very wrong. If you carry a balance, you'll pay much more in interest than you'd get from practically any investment you could make with the cash in the meantime. Second, a debit card can be used to get cash you already have from an ATM (not everyone takes credit, you know), and it'll cost you little or nothing. Use a credit card for the same purpose and you're paying 40% from the second the money comes out of the machine. Also correct. Rewards cards earn you more the more they're used. That's because the card issuer makes money based on usage; they get 3% of each transaction. They're happy to turn 1% of that, up to a limit or subject to a spending floor, back around to you. Again, check the terms and conditions. Most cards have a limit on total rewards. Many of them also have fees, either while you hold the card or when you try to redeem the rewards. Look for a card with high limits or no limits on rewards from spending, and with no annual fee or reward redemption fee. In addition to the above, you build good credit history with good spending patterns. However, your credit score can fluctuate wildly, because on one day you have very low leverage (percent of credit limit used), and on the next you've bought $200 in groceries and so your leverage went up 20% on a card with a $1000 limit. Leverage under 10% is good, leverage under 40% is OK and leverage over that starts looking bad. With a $1000 limit, with you maxing it out and then paying it off, your credit score can fluctuate by 30 points on any given day.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"326094\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \\\"\\\"I'd like to close the cards.\\\"\\\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \\\"\\\"terrible\\\"\\\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"550166\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%: Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"297274\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I would recommend putting it on a credit card, just not your current credit card. Run a Google search for \\\"\\\"credit cards with good signup bonuses\\\"\\\" and you will potentially come across these links: http://www.cardrates.com/advice/11-best-signup-bonus-credit-cards/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/top-credit-cards/best-credit-card-offers/ There are cards out there which can qualify you to: The $150 back on a $500 purchase is an instant 30% ROI. The best stock options couldn't guarantee you that kind of return. You will instantly meet the criteria and get $150 + $25 (1% cash back on the full $2,500) The only stipulation is that in order to fully benefit from the rewards, you must pay off the card in full when your bill comes in or else you will pay steep interest. After a year or so you can cancel the card. If you want, sign up for two or three cards and split the payment. Reap the rewards from multiple credit cards. I wish I had done this with my college tuition; it was a tough pill to swallow when I forked over $3,000 at the registrar's office for one semester :-( I had the potential to realize a savings of $900 in one semester alone. Would have been nice to apply such a kickback against buying my books. If you work things out correctly then you can save 30% ($750) on your total purchase. That's one way to not run yourself dry. Disclaimer: By following these steps you will be triggering at least one hard inquiry against your credit. Each hard inquiry has the potential to lower your credit rating. If you do not plan to use your score to apply for any major loans (e.g. car or house) then this reduction in credit will have basically no impact on your day-to-day life. Assuming you continue using your credit responsibly then your credit should just bounce right back to where it was in no time. I know there are many people out there that cherish their score and relish in the fact that it is so high but it's for moments like these that make it worthwhile to \\\"\\\"spend\\\"\\\" your credit score. It's an inanimate number whose sole purpose is to be \\\"\\\"spent\\\"\\\" in times like these.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"30913\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \\\"\\\"appropriate\\\"\\\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \\\"\\\"flight risk\\\"\\\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"498881\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Paying off your mortgage early being good is a myth. It is great for the chronic overspenders to have their mortgage paid off so when they rack up credit card bills and get behind, well they still hae a place to stay. But for those who are more logical with their money paying off your mortgage early in current conditions makes no sense. You can get a 30 year loan well below 4%. Discounting taxes for your average family you would have a rate floating below 3%. So reasons that paying off your mortgage should be almost LAST (given current low long-term interest rates): The first thing you should do is take care of any high interest debt. I would say that anything more than 7-8%, including all credit card debt should be focus #1. putting money into your retirement savings is #1. You will earn way more than 3% over the long-run. you can earn a higher return in the market. Even with a very conservative portfolio you can clear 5-6%, which will still clear more than 3% after taxes. for those who say you can't be sure about the market... well if the market did bad for 30 years in a row no one will have money and the house will also be worthless. if a disaster happens to your house and you own it, your money is gone. In many cases you would be able to declare bankruptcy and let the bank take the property as is. there are just too many examples but if you are paying off your house early, you lose the flexible/liquid money that you now have tied up in the house. Now the reasons for paying down your mortgage are really easy too: you don't trust your spending habits you want to move up in houses and you want to make sure that you have at least 20% down on future house to skip PMI.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"397538\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \\\"\\\"trap\\\"\\\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"230297\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \\\"\\\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\\\"\\\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"88942\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \\\"\\\"Why do I need a good credit score?\\\"\\\" Most of the time, the answer will be \\\"\\\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\\\"\\\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \\\"\\\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\\\"\\\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"533621\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries. One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US. The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported). You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them. Most of the banks offer special deals for \\\"\\\"New Canadians\\\"\\\". You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much. Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active. No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit). You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you. For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card. Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"91183\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" than the market.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"23949\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \\\"\\\"kickback\\\"\\\" or charge a \\\"\\\"fee\\\"\\\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"375780\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Paying off a loan early isn't a bad thing. Having a credit card for 6 months and then closing it is probably unneeded; pay it off and then keep it as an emergency card. The key is debt:available credit ratio. Look at this article for example which explains the different elements; the only one you're affecting here is the second, your debt load. If you're not planning on asking for another loan in the next six months, none of this really matters - assuming you are paying it off for sure, in six months, your debt will be gone and your credit score recovered from any hit it takes (and if you get a $1500 credit card and only put $300 on it, it might actually improve your credit). But having an open $1500 credit card with a 0 balance will probably improve your credit rating, unless you have a really high amount of available credit. It will improve your debt/credit ratio (ie, total $ you owe divided by total $ you could put on your CCs/revolving credit). This is all aside from the \\\"\\\"is it a good idea to borrow money for a 3 month vacation before starting working\\\"\\\", which the answer is \\\"\\\"Well, not exactly\\\"\\\". That's not from a credit perspective, just from a living within your means perspective. If you have a firm job that will easily pay off the vacation, it's probably not a bad thing, but definitely a certain number of people will take this and end up in 'spending bad habits' that last their life. Be aware of that, and if you're just loaning yourself money from the future, make sure you understand the terms of that loan... and are certain you can pay it off.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"300990\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Note: the question is tagged united kingdom, this is a UK focussed answer practices elsewhere may be different). A balance transfer moves your debt from one credit card to another. This can be a good way to get a debt onto a lower (often zero) interest rate. There will usually be a transfer fee but with a good balance transfer deal the effective interest rate even after taking the fee into account can be very good and there are even some deals with 0% interest and no fee. Indeed if you keep on top of things credit cards are often the cheapest way to borrow. Normally a balance transfer is done to a new card that is applied for specifically for the purpose but sometimes it can make sense to transfer a balance to an existing card. However to take advantage of this you need discipline. You need to make absoloutely sure that you fully comply with the rules of the deal and in particular that you pay at least the minimum payment on time. You should also be aware that the rate will usually jump up at the end of the interest free period, you could do another balance transfer but assuming you will be able to do that is risky as it depends on what market conditions and your credit rating look like at the time. Ideally you should have a plan for paying off the card before the interest free period expires. In general you should be aiming to pay down your debts. Living beyond your means is very bad and carrying debt long term should only be done if you have an extremely good reason. You should regard the balance transfer as a tool to help you clear your debts quicker, not as a way to avoid paying them. If you go on a spending spree after your balance transfer you will just have dug yourself deeper in debt. See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards for more on the techniques and the current best cards.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"289231\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"393866\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \\\"\\\"rewards\\\"\\\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \\\"\\\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\\\"\\\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"217804\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The whole point of a credit report and, by extension, a credit score, is to demonstrate (and judge) your ability to repay borrowed funds. Everything stems from that goal; available credit, payment history, collections, etc all serve to demonstrate whether or not you personally are a good investment for lenders to pursue. Revolving credit balances are tricky because they are more complicated than fixed loans (for the rest of this answer, I'll just talk about credit cards, though it also applies to lines of credit such as overdraft protection for checking accounts, HELOCs, and other such products). Having a large available balance relative to your income means that at any time you could suddenly drown yourself in debt. Having no credit cards means you don't have experience managing them (and personal finances are governed largely by behavior, meaning experience is invaluable). Having credit cards but carrying a high balance means you know how to borrow money, but not pay it back. Having credit cards but carrying no balance means you don't know how to borrow money (or you don't trust yourself to pay it back). Ideally, lenders will see a pattern of you borrowing a portion of the available credit, and then paying it down. Generally that means utilizing up to 30% of your available credit. Even if you maintain the balance in that range without paying it off completely, it at least shows that you have restraint, and are able to stop spending at a limit you personally set, rather than the limit the bank sets for you. So, to answer your question, 0% balance on your credit cards is bad because you might as well not have them. Use it, pay it off, rinse and repeat, and it will demonstrate your ability to exercise self control as well as your ability to repay your debts.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"320246\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"481822\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"305954\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions. The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them. I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them. The article below does state that Mastercard does have a \\\"\\\"stop recurring payment\\\"\\\" flag. Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice. Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"47441\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"208860\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"When I was in high school, my mom got me a joint credit account with both of our names on it for exactly this reason. Well, that, and to have in case I found myself in some sort emergency, but it was mostly to build credit history. That account is still on my credit report (it's my oldest by a few years), and looking at the age of it, I was 17 at the time we opened it (and I think my younger sister got one around the same time). In my case, I now have an \\\"\\\"excellent\\\"\\\" credit score and my weakest area is the age of my accounts, so having that old account definitely helps me. I don't think I've really taken advantage of it, and I'm not sure if I'd really be worse off if my mom hadn't done that, but it certainly hasn't hurt. And I plan on buying a house in the next year or so, so having anything to bump up the credit score seems like a good thing.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"193641\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old This is fairly straight forward. If you've not been exposed to borrowing for a reasonable length of time, people won't want to lend you money. They have no reason to have any confidence in your ability to repay them. As other said, it's pretty much a case of proving yourself by being good with credit over a period of time. 2. You have no active credit card accounts Credit reference agencies have to consider a variety of factors for a variety of purposes. Notably, they will be used for credit cards, unsecured loans, mortgages, and secured loans such as vehicle finance applications. These all have varying types of customer, and some will be inherently more risky than others. For instance, someone with a mortgage on a home is far more likely to make payments because they would be homeless without, however someone with a finance agreement on a car is relatively less likely to make those payments because all they stand to lose is their car. Consider that the most fruitful information the lender will get is a score and some breakdown of how it's generated, it's a very general understanding of your history. For that reason, having a wide variety of credit is very important. A good variety of credit to have would be one secured loan (e.g car finance) to get started, as well as at least one revolving unsecured credit account (e.g a credit card), and later on in your \\\"\\\"credit life\\\"\\\" an unsecured fixed term loan (e.g a loan for something which has nothing secured against it). I say the above reluctantly, because that's how I increased my credit score from 450 to 999 - first step was the car finance where in 3 months or so I changed from 450 to around 600, with a credit card I was approaching 900, and once I had an unsecured loan for 8 months I hit 999 - now I have all of the above plus a competitive mortgage and remain at 999. Whether each is mandatory to maintain 999 is debatable but based on personal experience, it seems reasonable.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":88,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6753"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Standardized loan options to purchase employee stock options"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"259072","title":"","text":"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"259072\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"220147","title":"","text":"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options)."},{"docid":"550643","title":"","text":"If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes."},{"docid":"595605","title":"","text":"\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\""},{"docid":"12899","title":"","text":"Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well."},{"docid":"340730","title":"","text":"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well..."},{"docid":"490867","title":"","text":"Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods."},{"docid":"134972","title":"","text":"The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?"},{"docid":"136047","title":"","text":"\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \"\"call.\"\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \"\"vest\"\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \"\"investment\"\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \"\"investment\"\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\""},{"docid":"17661","title":"","text":"The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)"},{"docid":"344372","title":"","text":"I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge."},{"docid":"393083","title":"","text":"Some ADRs have standardized options that trade on US exchanges. If your stock/ADR is one of those, then you find the put option through most brokerages that deal with stock options and trade the option like you would on a regular stock. If your ADR does not have standardized options, then your options will depend on where the ADR trades. If it's OTC, you might not even be able to short it. If it trades on a major exchange, the shorting the ADR may be a viable choice."},{"docid":"199206","title":"","text":"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price."},{"docid":"525390","title":"","text":"\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\""},{"docid":"444668","title":"","text":"\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\""},{"docid":"569224","title":"","text":"What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future."},{"docid":"136363","title":"","text":"Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of. Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small, correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly. It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from. Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term. Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year. If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months."},{"docid":"128884","title":"","text":"In general, a warrant is a security issued by a company allowing the holder to purchase a certain number of a particular class of shares at a certain price for a particular period of time. They differ from exchange traded options (i.e. calls and puts) in that they are issued by the company that issued the underlying shares that they allow you to purchase whereas calls and puts are generally written by other investors. The other big difference between options and warrants is that options are standardized. Any call or put you buy on a particular exchange has basically the same set of rules governing use. By contrast, a warrant may have all kinds of stipulations that must occur before you can execute, such as price events (e.g. only if the stock hits a certain price) or business events (e.g. only if the company elects to defer payment on a bond issued at the same time as the warrant). Warrants are generally a bad choice for small and inexperienced investors since each warrant issue is different and you often need a lawyer or other qualified professional to fully understand all to possible outcomes."},{"docid":"213767","title":"","text":"\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\""},{"docid":"312679","title":"","text":"Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't."},{"docid":"151802","title":"","text":"Do you simply get call options you can sell on an options exchange? No, you don't get call options that you can sell on an options exchange. Rather, you get rights that you can (generally) sell on the stock exchange. The right issue is in essence a call option – in that it behaves like one, but it is not considered a standardized option contract. is there a special exchange where such rights issues are traded? No. It will normally be done on the stock exchange."},{"docid":"192307","title":"","text":"\"The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock. Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket. Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket \"\"go to waste\"\"... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory. This is referred to as the \"\"sunk cost fallacy\"\" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now. Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing. Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A). This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset). Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today. Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision. By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset). If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B. Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk.\""},{"docid":"143655","title":"","text":"\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\""},{"docid":"484778","title":"","text":"\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\""},{"docid":"570318","title":"","text":"I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase."},{"docid":"24563","title":"","text":"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15."},{"docid":"73260","title":"","text":"So in a sense, I can think of the employees / option-holders as another investor? That makes sense - but many of the examples I'm finding online are still confusing me. Based on the example above, it seems like option-holders would be paying the same exercise price as the VC. Per [Andreesen Horowitz](https://a16z.com/2016/08/24/options-ownership/) this seems uncommon: > The exercise price of employee options — the price per share needed to actually own the shares — is often less than the original issue price paid by the most recent investor, who holds preferred stock. In reality, would option-holders receive, say, 40% (using example above) for their $6m in exercise value due to receiving common stock, with the founder being diluted to even further?"},{"docid":"195152","title":"","text":"Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk."},{"docid":"507828","title":"","text":"\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\""},{"docid":"70443","title":"","text":"Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)"},{"docid":"315060","title":"","text":"\"Options have legitimate uses as a way of hedging a bet, but in the hands of anyone but an expert they're gambling, not investing. They are EXTREMELY volatile compared to normal stocks, and are one of the best ways to lose your shirt in the stock market yet invented. How options actually work is that you're negotiating a promise that, at some future date or range of dates, they will let you purchase some specific number of shares (call), or they will let you sell them that number of shares (put), at a price specified in the option contract. The price you pay (or are paid) to obtain that contract depends on what the option's seller thinks the stock is likely to be worth when it reaches that date. (Note that if you don't already own the shares needed to back up a put option, you're promising to pay whatever it takes to buy those shares so you can sell them at the agreed upon price.) Note that by definition you're betting directly against experts, as opposed to a normal investment where you're usually trying to ride along with the experts. You are claiming that you can predict the future value of the stock better than they can, and that you will make a profit (on the difference between the value locked in by the option and the actual value at that time) which exceeds the cost of purchasing the option in the first place. Let me say that again: the option's price will have been set based on an expert's opinion of what the stock is likely to do in that time. If they think that it's really likely to be up $10 per share when the option comes due (really unlikely for a $20 stock!!!), they will try to charge you almost $10 per share to purchase the option at the current price. \"\"Almost\"\" because you're giving them a guaranteed profit now and assuming all the risk. If they're less sure it will go up that much, you'll pay less for the option -- but again, you're giving them hard money now and betting that you can predict the probabilities better than they can. Unless you have information that the experts don't have -- in which case you're probably committing insider trading -- this is a very hard bet to win. And it can be extremely misleading, since the price during the option period may cross back and forth over the \"\"enough that you'll make a profit\"\" line many times. Until you actually commit to exercising the option or not, that's all imaginary money which may vanish the next minute. Unless you are willing and able to invest pro-level resources in this, you'd probably get better odds in Atlantic City, and definitely get better odds in Las Vegas. If you don't see the sucker at the poker table, he's sitting in your seat. And betting against the guy who designed and is running the game is usually Not a Good Idea.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"220147\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"550643\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"595605\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \\\"\\\"early-exercised\\\"\\\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"12899\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"340730\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"490867\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"134972\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"136047\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a \\\"\\\"call.\\\"\\\" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks \\\"\\\"vest\\\"\\\" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\"), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"17661\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"344372\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"393083\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Some ADRs have standardized options that trade on US exchanges. If your stock/ADR is one of those, then you find the put option through most brokerages that deal with stock options and trade the option like you would on a regular stock. If your ADR does not have standardized options, then your options will depend on where the ADR trades. If it's OTC, you might not even be able to short it. If it trades on a major exchange, the shorting the ADR may be a viable choice.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"199206\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"525390\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \\\"\\\"call\\\"\\\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \\\"\\\"call options\\\"\\\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"444668\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \\\"\\\"day-trading\\\"\\\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"569224\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"136363\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of. Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small, correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly. It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from. Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term. Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year. If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"128884\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In general, a warrant is a security issued by a company allowing the holder to purchase a certain number of a particular class of shares at a certain price for a particular period of time. They differ from exchange traded options (i.e. calls and puts) in that they are issued by the company that issued the underlying shares that they allow you to purchase whereas calls and puts are generally written by other investors. The other big difference between options and warrants is that options are standardized. Any call or put you buy on a particular exchange has basically the same set of rules governing use. By contrast, a warrant may have all kinds of stipulations that must occur before you can execute, such as price events (e.g. only if the stock hits a certain price) or business events (e.g. only if the company elects to defer payment on a bond issued at the same time as the warrant). Warrants are generally a bad choice for small and inexperienced investors since each warrant issue is different and you often need a lawyer or other qualified professional to fully understand all to possible outcomes.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"213767\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \\\"\\\"Restricted stock\\\"\\\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \\\"\\\"The Negative Coupon Bond\\\"\\\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \\\"\\\"Incentive Stock Options\\\"\\\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"312679\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"151802\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Do you simply get call options you can sell on an options exchange? No, you don't get call options that you can sell on an options exchange. Rather, you get rights that you can (generally) sell on the stock exchange. The right issue is in essence a call option – in that it behaves like one, but it is not considered a standardized option contract. is there a special exchange where such rights issues are traded? No. It will normally be done on the stock exchange.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"192307\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock. Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket. Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket \\\"\\\"go to waste\\\"\\\"... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory. This is referred to as the \\\"\\\"sunk cost fallacy\\\"\\\" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now. Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing. Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A). This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset). Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today. Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision. By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset). If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B. Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"143655\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"484778\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"570318\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"24563\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"73260\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"So in a sense, I can think of the employees / option-holders as another investor? That makes sense - but many of the examples I'm finding online are still confusing me. Based on the example above, it seems like option-holders would be paying the same exercise price as the VC. Per [Andreesen Horowitz](https://a16z.com/2016/08/24/options-ownership/) this seems uncommon: > The exercise price of employee options — the price per share needed to actually own the shares — is often less than the original issue price paid by the most recent investor, who holds preferred stock. In reality, would option-holders receive, say, 40% (using example above) for their $6m in exercise value due to receiving common stock, with the founder being diluted to even further?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"195152\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"507828\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \\\"\\\"cancelling\\\"\\\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \\\"\\\"cancel\\\"\\\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \\\"\\\"no position\\\"\\\". That's not the same as \\\"\\\"cancelled\\\"\\\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \\\"\\\"sold to open\\\"\\\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \\\"\\\"buy to close\\\"\\\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \\\"\\\"buy to open\\\"\\\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \\\"\\\"sold to open\\\"\\\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \\\"\\\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\\\"\\\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \\\"\\\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\\\"\\\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"70443\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"315060\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Options have legitimate uses as a way of hedging a bet, but in the hands of anyone but an expert they're gambling, not investing. They are EXTREMELY volatile compared to normal stocks, and are one of the best ways to lose your shirt in the stock market yet invented. How options actually work is that you're negotiating a promise that, at some future date or range of dates, they will let you purchase some specific number of shares (call), or they will let you sell them that number of shares (put), at a price specified in the option contract. The price you pay (or are paid) to obtain that contract depends on what the option's seller thinks the stock is likely to be worth when it reaches that date. (Note that if you don't already own the shares needed to back up a put option, you're promising to pay whatever it takes to buy those shares so you can sell them at the agreed upon price.) Note that by definition you're betting directly against experts, as opposed to a normal investment where you're usually trying to ride along with the experts. You are claiming that you can predict the future value of the stock better than they can, and that you will make a profit (on the difference between the value locked in by the option and the actual value at that time) which exceeds the cost of purchasing the option in the first place. Let me say that again: the option's price will have been set based on an expert's opinion of what the stock is likely to do in that time. If they think that it's really likely to be up $10 per share when the option comes due (really unlikely for a $20 stock!!!), they will try to charge you almost $10 per share to purchase the option at the current price. \\\"\\\"Almost\\\"\\\" because you're giving them a guaranteed profit now and assuming all the risk. If they're less sure it will go up that much, you'll pay less for the option -- but again, you're giving them hard money now and betting that you can predict the probabilities better than they can. Unless you have information that the experts don't have -- in which case you're probably committing insider trading -- this is a very hard bet to win. And it can be extremely misleading, since the price during the option period may cross back and forth over the \\\"\\\"enough that you'll make a profit\\\"\\\" line many times. Until you actually commit to exercising the option or not, that's all imaginary money which may vanish the next minute. Unless you are willing and able to invest pro-level resources in this, you'd probably get better odds in Atlantic City, and definitely get better odds in Las Vegas. If you don't see the sucker at the poker table, he's sitting in your seat. And betting against the guy who designed and is running the game is usually Not a Good Idea.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":89,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6495"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What financial data are analysed (and how) to come up with a stock recommendation?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"121765","title":"","text":"The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend."},{"docid":"470725","title":"","text":"\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \"\"stock analysis\"\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"121765\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"470725\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \\\"\\\"stock analysis\\\"\\\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"281763","title":"","text":"A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV."},{"docid":"222469","title":"","text":"\"Again, there is nothing in the world that is \"\"totally safe\"\". Drink enough water and you will die. So let's not set the bar so high that it cannot be met by any standard. Yes, I am aware of what confirmation bias is. I find that most research-denial and data-denial comes from the anti-Monsanto crowd who continually disregard decades of mounting evidence that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer. \"\"After extensive reviews, most regulatory agencies—the US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and those of many other nations—have come to the conclusion that it does not cause cancer.\"\" EDIT: more \"\"One of the largest and most highly regarded studies to examine effects of pesticide use in real life is the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective investigation of about 89,000 agricultural workers, farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Since the early 1990s, it has gathered and analysed detailed information on the health of participants and their families, and their use of pesticides, including glyphosate. AHS researchers have published numerous studies from their data. One paper looking at glyphosate and possible links with cancers was published in 2005. It concluded that “glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall.” Since then, more data has been collected, adding statistical power to subsequent AHS analyses.\"\" http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/\""},{"docid":"204825","title":"","text":"\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"382384","title":"","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.)\""},{"docid":"408123","title":"","text":"\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\""},{"docid":"106239","title":"","text":"\"> Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. > If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. > No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. > Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. Only partly right. Sell side price targets are bullshit. Literally everyone knows this. The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else. [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3) > If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (\"\"ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!\"\"). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are. > Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions.\""},{"docid":"265365","title":"","text":"There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant."},{"docid":"133932","title":"","text":"And I was being facetious, apologies. I think your assertion that the > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors. I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic. To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference. CDOs are a great example of what to avoid."},{"docid":"213976","title":"","text":"To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount."},{"docid":"207813","title":"","text":"\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""},{"docid":"217427","title":"","text":"\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""},{"docid":"370281","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"360059","title":"","text":"\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\""},{"docid":"453604","title":"","text":"This is a retarded statement. Excel was never meant to be used for gigantic complex models based on large data sets but it's still incredibly valuable. I've been using it for 20 years in my career and when it comes to building quick and dirty analyses and forecasting models I will run circles around anybody trying to use R or Python."},{"docid":"134037","title":"","text":"\"I know your \"\"pain\"\". But don't worry about investing the money right now -- leave it uninvested in the short term. You have other stuff you need to school up on. Investment will come, and it's not that hard. In the short term, focus on taxes. Do some \"\"mock\"\" run-throughs of your expected end-of-year taxes (use last year's forms if this year's aren't available yet). Must you pay estimated tax periodically throughout the year? The tax authorities charge hefty penalties for \"\"forgetting\"\" to do it or \"\"not knowing you have to\"\". Keep an eye out for any other government gotchas. Do not overlook this! This is the best investment you could possibly make. Max out your government sanctioned retirement funds - in the US we have employer plans like 401K or Keogh, and personal plans like the IRA. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid any \"\"products\"\" the financial advisors want to sell you, like annuities. Also if you have the Roth type IRA, learn the difference between that and a normal one. There are some tricks you can do if you expect to have an \"\"off\"\" year in the future. Charitable giving is worth considering at high income levels. Do not donate directly to charities. Instead, use a Donor Advised Fund. It is a charity of its own, which accepts your tax deductible donation, and holds it. You take the tax deduction that year. Then later, when the spirit moves, tell your DAF to donate to the charity of your choice. This eliminates most of the headaches associated with giving. You don't get on the soft-hearted sucker lists, because you tell the DAF not to disclose your address, phone or email. You don't need the charity's acknowledgement letter for your taxes, since your donation was actually to the DAF. It shuts down scams and non-charities, since the DAF confirms their nonprofit status and sends the check to their official address only. (This also bypasses those evil for-profit \"\"fundraising companies\"\".) It's a lot simpler than they want you to know. So-called \"\"financial advisors\"\" are actually salesmen working on commission. They urge you to invest, because that's what they sell. They sell financial products you can't understand because they are intentionally unduly complex, specifically to confuse you. They are trying to psych you into believing all investments are too complex to understand, so you'll give up and \"\"just trust them\"\". Simple investments exist. They actually perform better since they aren't burdened down with overhead and internal complexity. Follow this rule: If you don't understand a financial product, don't buy it. But seriously, do commit and take the time to learn investment. You are the best friend your money will have - or its worst enemy. The only way to protect your money from inflation or financial salesmen is to understand investment yourself. You can have a successful understanding of how to invest from 1 or 2 books. (Certainly not everything; those ingenious salesmen keep making the financial world more complicated, but you don't need any of that junk.) For instance how do you allocate domestic stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc. in an IRA if you're under 40? Well... how do smaller universities invest their endowments? They all want the same thing you do. If you look into it, you'll find they all invest about the same. And that's quite similar to the asset mix Suze Orman recommends for young people's IRAs. See? Not that complicated. Then take the time to learn why. It isn't stupid easy, but it is learnable. For someone in your tier of income, I recommend Suze Orman's books. I know that some people don't like her, but that segues into a big problem you'll run into: People have very strong feelings about money. Intense, irrational emotions. People get it from their parents or they get sucked into the \"\"trust trap\"\" I mentioned with so-called financial advisors. They bet their whole savings on whatever they're doing, and their ego is very involved. When they push you toward their salesman or his variable annuity, they want you to agree they invested well. So you kinda have to keep your head low, not listen too much to friends/family, and do your research for yourself. John Bogle's book on mutual funds is a must-read for picking mutual funds and allocating assets. Certain financial advisors are OK. They are \"\"fee only\"\" advisors. They deal with all their customers on a fee-only basis, and are not connected to a company which sells financial products. They will be happy for you to keep your money in your account at your discount brokerage, and do your own trading on asset types (not brands) they recommend. They don't need your password. Here's what not to do: A good friend strongly recommended his financial advisor. In the interview, I said I wanted a fee-only advisor, and he agreed to charge me $2000 flat rate. Later, I figured out he normally works on commissions, because he was selling me the exact same products he'd sell to a commission (free advice) customer, and they were terrible products of course. I fired him fast.\""},{"docid":"490065","title":"","text":"\"Money management is data-driven. You've been operating on \"\"how you feel\"\" and \"\"what should be\"\", and that's why it hasn't been working. First you collect data on how you actually are spending money. Record every expenditure and categorize what it was used for. Go back 6-12 months if you can. You don't need blistering detail, in fact I adjusted my lifestyle to make that easy. Fast food meals, movie tickets, USB cables, anything too small to bother recording, I just pay cash for that. Everything else: check, ACH or credit card. It is not excessive to do it in Quickbooks or similar if you know the app. Whatever is most efficient for you. Now you have a log of what you've been spending on what in a time oeriod, and a log of your income. Congratulations, you have a \"\"Profit & Loss Statement\"\", a basic financial planning tool. Now you can look at it accurately, decide if the money you are spending in each department brings the value and joy that fits the expenditure, and change what you want. You may decide you'd rather save $1000/mo than run a $200/mo deficit. Changing is simply coming up with different numbers that you think are achievable. Congratulations, you have a budget or spending plan. Again, data driven. The point is, your spending plan is based on your actual experience with past expenditures, not blind-guessing. Then, go out and make it happen.\""},{"docid":"541280","title":"","text":"You can call it a stock rating of say between 0 to 5 or 0 to 10 or whatever scale you want to use. It should not be called a recommendation but rather a rating based on the criterial you have analysed. Also a scale from say 0 to 5 is better than using terms like buy, hold and sell."},{"docid":"556283","title":"","text":"Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important. The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time. The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly unpredictable returns. There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much. This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with. Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations. To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity."},{"docid":"454871","title":"","text":"The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought]. But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great. High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people). You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each. If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market. If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio. This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset? A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks. People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be. The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds. These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds. But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense."},{"docid":"281572","title":"","text":"That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol"},{"docid":"21070","title":"","text":"\"For starters, the risk-free rate has nothing to do with stocks. It would be independent of anything. It pays out the same return in all states of nature. The definition of a risk-free asset is that regardless of how the universe turns out, including a meteor striking the Earth killing everyone but the recipient, then the payout would happen exactly as planned. One could imagine a computer still being on, connected to a power supply and printing a check. Most people use the 90-day t-bill as the risk-free rate. A beta greater than one implies it is more volatile than the market, not that it moves more perfectly. The CAPM should not be used for this. Cryptocurrencies should not be used with this model because they have valuation dynamics related to the new issue of coins. In other words, they have non-market price movements as well as market price movements. In general, you should not use the CAPM because it doesn't work empirically. It is famous, but it is also wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is not supported by the data is a bad idea. My strong recommendation is that you read \"\"The Intelligent Investor,\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It was last published in 1972, and it is still being printed. I believe Warren Buffett wrote the current forward for it. Always go where the data supports you and never anywhere else, no matter how elegant. Finally, unless you are doing this like a trip to Vegas, for fun and willing to take the losses, I would avoid cryptocurrencies because you don't know what you are doing yet. It is obvious from the posting. I have multiple decades working in every type of financial institution and at every level, bottom to top. I also have a doctorate, and I am an incredible researcher. I am professionally qualified in three different disciplines. If you want to learn how to do this, start with the \"\"Intelligent Investor.\"\" Get a basic book on accounting and learn basic accounting. Pick up economics textbooks at least through \"\"Intermediate\"\" for both microeconomics and macroeconomics. Get William Bolstad's book \"\"Introduction to Bayesian Statistics.\"\" You will need them for reasons that go very far beyond this post. Trust me; you want to master that book. Find a statistician and ask them to teach it to you as a special topics course. It will help you as both either a Marine officer or a Naval officer. Then after that pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis.\"\" Either the 1943 copy (yes it is in print) by Benjamin Graham if you feel good about accounting, or the 1987 copy by Cottle under the Graham/Dodd imprimatur. Then, if you are still interested in cryptocurrencies and they will be blasé by then, then pick up an economics textbook on money. If I were you, I would learn about Yap money, commodity money, and prison money first, then you might understand why a cryptocurrency may not be an investment for you.\""},{"docid":"47973","title":"","text":"\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them. Most declined. You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole. (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my \"\"portfolio\"\"/investments. I later found training that companies offered. I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner. If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments. The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the \"\"experts\"\" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform. I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training. I recommend them. But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called \"\"Paper Money\"\". It lets you trade using the real market but with play money. I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock. This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor. You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks). This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to \"\"cheat\"\" and change the dates to meet your needs. I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get \"\"emotionally involved\"\" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return. Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification). They diversify to take a \"\"hands off\"\" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions. It's not (necessarily) a bad approach. It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market). The downside is it also avoids the high returns. If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try. I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest. The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain. It was a learning experience. I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date. Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in \"\"the market\"\" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting. Few investment firms can beat \"\"the market\"\" although many try to do so. I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned. So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money. That is what is all about.\""},{"docid":"445635","title":"","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. ;-)"},{"docid":"173088","title":"","text":"\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\""},{"docid":"146091","title":"","text":"\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\""},{"docid":"305360","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"413955","title":"","text":"To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind."},{"docid":"455239","title":"","text":"> I think all taxes are theft, no matter who they come from. That is a matter of opinion. Obviously, I disagree with that sentiment. Do you have a reason behind it? > Again, you haven't really substantiated any claim about your financial situation. I have scanned in a tax summary sheet from my CPA. I took off all the personal identifying data. I would be happy to share it with you, but I am not sure how to attach it to posts like this. Any ideas? > Additionally, I'm sure someone of your financial stature would have enough time to go on Reddit. I am an owner, if I want to sit at my work desk and reddit - as I am doing right now - I can do that. Not what I typically do, but I just got off travel, and trying to get back into it. Plus, I am procrasting a little bit, because we have some big projects coming up! I am still human! > Literally take your pick and we can begin Okay, I will pick a topic that I am more familiar with - Defense R&D. My position is that, while there are many companies that do R&D in the world of defense, there is also much innovation that comes from the government itself. GPS is one such technology. And while there are many very innovative companies that have built onto and done some amazing things with this technology, if it weren't for government investment and R&D, it wouldn't exist. > And yes, even people who advocate only higher taxes for the rich will end up with higher taxes for me (I.e. Bernie Sanders) What part of Bernie's proposal leads you to believe that?"},{"docid":"527602","title":"","text":"Regardless of your thoughts on what was happening in late 2012, financial prices should not be used as the sole barometer of a recovery...this is why the Fed uses tons of macroeconomic data, not just that BAC has been up 20% in the last 6 months. My point is if you are going to tout what seems to be a market timing model, where the authors are proud of the fact that the entire thing is data mined, you need strong out of sample evidence (over a few business cycles) that it works. Nothing here comes close"},{"docid":"133935","title":"","text":"\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"281763\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"222469\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Again, there is nothing in the world that is \\\"\\\"totally safe\\\"\\\". Drink enough water and you will die. So let's not set the bar so high that it cannot be met by any standard. Yes, I am aware of what confirmation bias is. I find that most research-denial and data-denial comes from the anti-Monsanto crowd who continually disregard decades of mounting evidence that there is no link between glyphosate and cancer. \\\"\\\"After extensive reviews, most regulatory agencies—the US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and those of many other nations—have come to the conclusion that it does not cause cancer.\\\"\\\" EDIT: more \\\"\\\"One of the largest and most highly regarded studies to examine effects of pesticide use in real life is the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective investigation of about 89,000 agricultural workers, farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Since the early 1990s, it has gathered and analysed detailed information on the health of participants and their families, and their use of pesticides, including glyphosate. AHS researchers have published numerous studies from their data. One paper looking at glyphosate and possible links with cancers was published in 2005. It concluded that “glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall.” Since then, more data has been collected, adding statistical power to subsequent AHS analyses.\\\"\\\" http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"204825\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \\\"\\\"don't know\\\"\\\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \\\"\\\"less safe\\\"\\\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \\\"\\\"bad guys\\\"\\\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \\\"\\\"USA Real ID Act\\\"\\\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \\\"\\\"bad guys\\\"\\\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"382384\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"408123\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"106239\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"> Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. > If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. > No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. > Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. Only partly right. Sell side price targets are bullshit. Literally everyone knows this. The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else. [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3) > If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (\\\"\\\"ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!\\\"\\\"). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are. > Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"265365\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"133932\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"And I was being facetious, apologies. I think your assertion that the > entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent is a massive simplification of what happened. There are many great analyses of the crisis, and most of them come to the conclusion that 'it was a perfect storm' of different factors. I gather you think the problem was regulatory, I think the problem is systemic. To me it doesn't matter how the regulations are written what matters are the incentives. I see no evidence that the regulatory agencies in the US can effectively police, let alone effectively deter financial institutions from skirting the laws. In fact I think wall street runs on such a haystack of grey-area regulations that without wholesale, root and branch reform (e.g. antitrust laws similar to Standard Oil to be used on the big banks) there's no hope that any patchwork of regulations, well-intentioned as they may be, from making a difference. CDOs are a great example of what to avoid.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"213976\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"207813\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\\\"\\\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\\\"\\\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\\\"\\\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\\\"\\\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\\\"\\\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \\\"\\\"checking and savings\\\"\\\" was 75.8% while those with \\\"\\\"checking only\\\"\\\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \\\"\\\"emergency savings\\\"\\\": > *\\\"\\\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\\\"\\\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\\\"\\\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\\\"\\\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \\\"\\\"currency and deposits\\\"\\\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \\\"\\\"securities and other shares\\\"\\\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\\\"\\\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\\\"\\\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"217427\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\\\"\\\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\\\"\\\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\\\"\\\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\\\"\\\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\\\"\\\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \\\"\\\"checking and savings\\\"\\\" was 75.8% while those with \\\"\\\"checking only\\\"\\\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \\\"\\\"emergency savings\\\"\\\": > *\\\"\\\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\\\"\\\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\\\"\\\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\\\"\\\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \\\"\\\"currency and deposits\\\"\\\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \\\"\\\"securities and other shares\\\"\\\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\\\"\\\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\\\"\\\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"370281\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"360059\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"453604\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"This is a retarded statement. Excel was never meant to be used for gigantic complex models based on large data sets but it's still incredibly valuable. I've been using it for 20 years in my career and when it comes to building quick and dirty analyses and forecasting models I will run circles around anybody trying to use R or Python.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"134037\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I know your \\\"\\\"pain\\\"\\\". But don't worry about investing the money right now -- leave it uninvested in the short term. You have other stuff you need to school up on. Investment will come, and it's not that hard. In the short term, focus on taxes. Do some \\\"\\\"mock\\\"\\\" run-throughs of your expected end-of-year taxes (use last year's forms if this year's aren't available yet). Must you pay estimated tax periodically throughout the year? The tax authorities charge hefty penalties for \\\"\\\"forgetting\\\"\\\" to do it or \\\"\\\"not knowing you have to\\\"\\\". Keep an eye out for any other government gotchas. Do not overlook this! This is the best investment you could possibly make. Max out your government sanctioned retirement funds - in the US we have employer plans like 401K or Keogh, and personal plans like the IRA. This is fairly straightforward. Avoid any \\\"\\\"products\\\"\\\" the financial advisors want to sell you, like annuities. Also if you have the Roth type IRA, learn the difference between that and a normal one. There are some tricks you can do if you expect to have an \\\"\\\"off\\\"\\\" year in the future. Charitable giving is worth considering at high income levels. Do not donate directly to charities. Instead, use a Donor Advised Fund. It is a charity of its own, which accepts your tax deductible donation, and holds it. You take the tax deduction that year. Then later, when the spirit moves, tell your DAF to donate to the charity of your choice. This eliminates most of the headaches associated with giving. You don't get on the soft-hearted sucker lists, because you tell the DAF not to disclose your address, phone or email. You don't need the charity's acknowledgement letter for your taxes, since your donation was actually to the DAF. It shuts down scams and non-charities, since the DAF confirms their nonprofit status and sends the check to their official address only. (This also bypasses those evil for-profit \\\"\\\"fundraising companies\\\"\\\".) It's a lot simpler than they want you to know. So-called \\\"\\\"financial advisors\\\"\\\" are actually salesmen working on commission. They urge you to invest, because that's what they sell. They sell financial products you can't understand because they are intentionally unduly complex, specifically to confuse you. They are trying to psych you into believing all investments are too complex to understand, so you'll give up and \\\"\\\"just trust them\\\"\\\". Simple investments exist. They actually perform better since they aren't burdened down with overhead and internal complexity. Follow this rule: If you don't understand a financial product, don't buy it. But seriously, do commit and take the time to learn investment. You are the best friend your money will have - or its worst enemy. The only way to protect your money from inflation or financial salesmen is to understand investment yourself. You can have a successful understanding of how to invest from 1 or 2 books. (Certainly not everything; those ingenious salesmen keep making the financial world more complicated, but you don't need any of that junk.) For instance how do you allocate domestic stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, etc. in an IRA if you're under 40? Well... how do smaller universities invest their endowments? They all want the same thing you do. If you look into it, you'll find they all invest about the same. And that's quite similar to the asset mix Suze Orman recommends for young people's IRAs. See? Not that complicated. Then take the time to learn why. It isn't stupid easy, but it is learnable. For someone in your tier of income, I recommend Suze Orman's books. I know that some people don't like her, but that segues into a big problem you'll run into: People have very strong feelings about money. Intense, irrational emotions. People get it from their parents or they get sucked into the \\\"\\\"trust trap\\\"\\\" I mentioned with so-called financial advisors. They bet their whole savings on whatever they're doing, and their ego is very involved. When they push you toward their salesman or his variable annuity, they want you to agree they invested well. So you kinda have to keep your head low, not listen too much to friends/family, and do your research for yourself. John Bogle's book on mutual funds is a must-read for picking mutual funds and allocating assets. Certain financial advisors are OK. They are \\\"\\\"fee only\\\"\\\" advisors. They deal with all their customers on a fee-only basis, and are not connected to a company which sells financial products. They will be happy for you to keep your money in your account at your discount brokerage, and do your own trading on asset types (not brands) they recommend. They don't need your password. Here's what not to do: A good friend strongly recommended his financial advisor. In the interview, I said I wanted a fee-only advisor, and he agreed to charge me $2000 flat rate. Later, I figured out he normally works on commissions, because he was selling me the exact same products he'd sell to a commission (free advice) customer, and they were terrible products of course. I fired him fast.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"490065\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Money management is data-driven. You've been operating on \\\"\\\"how you feel\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"what should be\\\"\\\", and that's why it hasn't been working. First you collect data on how you actually are spending money. Record every expenditure and categorize what it was used for. Go back 6-12 months if you can. You don't need blistering detail, in fact I adjusted my lifestyle to make that easy. Fast food meals, movie tickets, USB cables, anything too small to bother recording, I just pay cash for that. Everything else: check, ACH or credit card. It is not excessive to do it in Quickbooks or similar if you know the app. Whatever is most efficient for you. Now you have a log of what you've been spending on what in a time oeriod, and a log of your income. Congratulations, you have a \\\"\\\"Profit & Loss Statement\\\"\\\", a basic financial planning tool. Now you can look at it accurately, decide if the money you are spending in each department brings the value and joy that fits the expenditure, and change what you want. You may decide you'd rather save $1000/mo than run a $200/mo deficit. Changing is simply coming up with different numbers that you think are achievable. Congratulations, you have a budget or spending plan. Again, data driven. The point is, your spending plan is based on your actual experience with past expenditures, not blind-guessing. Then, go out and make it happen.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"541280\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You can call it a stock rating of say between 0 to 5 or 0 to 10 or whatever scale you want to use. It should not be called a recommendation but rather a rating based on the criterial you have analysed. Also a scale from say 0 to 5 is better than using terms like buy, hold and sell.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"556283\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important. The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time. The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly unpredictable returns. There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much. This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with. Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations. To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"454871\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought]. But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great. High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people). You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each. If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market. If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio. This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset? A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks. People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be. The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds. These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds. But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"281572\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"21070\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"For starters, the risk-free rate has nothing to do with stocks. It would be independent of anything. It pays out the same return in all states of nature. The definition of a risk-free asset is that regardless of how the universe turns out, including a meteor striking the Earth killing everyone but the recipient, then the payout would happen exactly as planned. One could imagine a computer still being on, connected to a power supply and printing a check. Most people use the 90-day t-bill as the risk-free rate. A beta greater than one implies it is more volatile than the market, not that it moves more perfectly. The CAPM should not be used for this. Cryptocurrencies should not be used with this model because they have valuation dynamics related to the new issue of coins. In other words, they have non-market price movements as well as market price movements. In general, you should not use the CAPM because it doesn't work empirically. It is famous, but it is also wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is not supported by the data is a bad idea. My strong recommendation is that you read \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor,\\\"\\\" by Benjamin Graham. It was last published in 1972, and it is still being printed. I believe Warren Buffett wrote the current forward for it. Always go where the data supports you and never anywhere else, no matter how elegant. Finally, unless you are doing this like a trip to Vegas, for fun and willing to take the losses, I would avoid cryptocurrencies because you don't know what you are doing yet. It is obvious from the posting. I have multiple decades working in every type of financial institution and at every level, bottom to top. I also have a doctorate, and I am an incredible researcher. I am professionally qualified in three different disciplines. If you want to learn how to do this, start with the \\\"\\\"Intelligent Investor.\\\"\\\" Get a basic book on accounting and learn basic accounting. Pick up economics textbooks at least through \\\"\\\"Intermediate\\\"\\\" for both microeconomics and macroeconomics. Get William Bolstad's book \\\"\\\"Introduction to Bayesian Statistics.\\\"\\\" You will need them for reasons that go very far beyond this post. Trust me; you want to master that book. Find a statistician and ask them to teach it to you as a special topics course. It will help you as both either a Marine officer or a Naval officer. Then after that pick up a copy of \\\"\\\"Security Analysis.\\\"\\\" Either the 1943 copy (yes it is in print) by Benjamin Graham if you feel good about accounting, or the 1987 copy by Cottle under the Graham/Dodd imprimatur. Then, if you are still interested in cryptocurrencies and they will be blasé by then, then pick up an economics textbook on money. If I were you, I would learn about Yap money, commodity money, and prison money first, then you might understand why a cryptocurrency may not be an investment for you.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"47973\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them. Most declined. You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole. (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my \\\"\\\"portfolio\\\"\\\"/investments. I later found training that companies offered. I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner. If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments. The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the \\\"\\\"experts\\\"\\\" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform. I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training. I recommend them. But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called \\\"\\\"Paper Money\\\"\\\". It lets you trade using the real market but with play money. I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock. This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor. You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks). This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to \\\"\\\"cheat\\\"\\\" and change the dates to meet your needs. I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get \\\"\\\"emotionally involved\\\"\\\" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return. Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification). They diversify to take a \\\"\\\"hands off\\\"\\\" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions. It's not (necessarily) a bad approach. It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market). The downside is it also avoids the high returns. If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try. I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest. The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain. It was a learning experience. I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date. Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting. Few investment firms can beat \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\" although many try to do so. I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned. So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money. That is what is all about.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"445635\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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. ;-)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"173088\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"146091\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \\\"\\\"standards\\\"\\\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"305360\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"413955\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"455239\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"> I think all taxes are theft, no matter who they come from. That is a matter of opinion. Obviously, I disagree with that sentiment. Do you have a reason behind it? > Again, you haven't really substantiated any claim about your financial situation. I have scanned in a tax summary sheet from my CPA. I took off all the personal identifying data. I would be happy to share it with you, but I am not sure how to attach it to posts like this. Any ideas? > Additionally, I'm sure someone of your financial stature would have enough time to go on Reddit. I am an owner, if I want to sit at my work desk and reddit - as I am doing right now - I can do that. Not what I typically do, but I just got off travel, and trying to get back into it. Plus, I am procrasting a little bit, because we have some big projects coming up! I am still human! > Literally take your pick and we can begin Okay, I will pick a topic that I am more familiar with - Defense R&D. My position is that, while there are many companies that do R&D in the world of defense, there is also much innovation that comes from the government itself. GPS is one such technology. And while there are many very innovative companies that have built onto and done some amazing things with this technology, if it weren't for government investment and R&D, it wouldn't exist. > And yes, even people who advocate only higher taxes for the rich will end up with higher taxes for me (I.e. Bernie Sanders) What part of Bernie's proposal leads you to believe that?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"527602\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Regardless of your thoughts on what was happening in late 2012, financial prices should not be used as the sole barometer of a recovery...this is why the Fed uses tons of macroeconomic data, not just that BAC has been up 20% in the last 6 months. My point is if you are going to tout what seems to be a market timing model, where the authors are proud of the fact that the entire thing is data mined, you need strong out of sample evidence (over a few business cycles) that it works. Nothing here comes close\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"133935\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \\\"\\\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\\\"\\\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":90,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7435"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"If a fund holds stocks paying dividends and doesn't give a payout, is it necessarily re investing those dividends?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"226967","title":"","text":"It is not necessary that the mutual fund pays out the dividend. The money would be used to buy more shares of the same stock or of some other stock depending on overall policy goal of the fund and current allocation of funds. This would increase the NAV of the mutual fund and hence its indirectly comes to you once you sell the mutual fund. The dividend would not be taxable as its not directly paid out."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"226967\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It is not necessary that the mutual fund pays out the dividend. The money would be used to buy more shares of the same stock or of some other stock depending on overall policy goal of the fund and current allocation of funds. This would increase the NAV of the mutual fund and hence its indirectly comes to you once you sell the mutual fund. The dividend would not be taxable as its not directly paid out.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"3118","title":"","text":"Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid."},{"docid":"170318","title":"","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."},{"docid":"403701","title":"","text":"This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one."},{"docid":"22207","title":"","text":"\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \"\"dilute\"\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \"\"nominal value\"\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \"\"look\"\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \"\"survived\"\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\""},{"docid":"162916","title":"","text":"In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too."},{"docid":"511559","title":"","text":"\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\""},{"docid":"244813","title":"","text":"\"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \"\"why would I care?\"\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\""},{"docid":"315345","title":"","text":"The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV."},{"docid":"281841","title":"","text":"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\""},{"docid":"354136","title":"","text":"\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\""},{"docid":"575554","title":"","text":"Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value."},{"docid":"522040","title":"","text":"\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\""},{"docid":"315748","title":"","text":"When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other."},{"docid":"63296","title":"","text":"\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\""},{"docid":"160140","title":"","text":"\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\""},{"docid":"299284","title":"","text":"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment."},{"docid":"11032","title":"","text":"\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\""},{"docid":"1034","title":"","text":"\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\""},{"docid":"290831","title":"","text":"The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!"},{"docid":"46818","title":"","text":"Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away."},{"docid":"399345","title":"","text":"A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low."},{"docid":"365627","title":"","text":"\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\""},{"docid":"521996","title":"","text":"\"Good for you! At your age, you should definitely consider investing some of your hard-earned and un-needed money in stocks with the long-term goal of having your retirement funded. The time horizon that you'd have would be vastly superior to that of millions of others, who will wait until their thirties or even forties to begin investing in stocks, giving your compound interest prospects the extra time anyone needs for a spectacular vertical incline in your later years. Make sure to sign up to automatically re-invest the dividend payouts of your stocks, please. (If you don't already know how being young and investing well in your early years is more powerful than starting out ten to twenty years later, do a little research on \"\"Compound Interest\"\"). Make sure you monitor your investments. Being young means you have time to correct your investments (sell and buy other assets) if the businesses you initially selected are no longer good investments.\""},{"docid":"565765","title":"","text":"I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends."},{"docid":"89714","title":"","text":"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! .."},{"docid":"394226","title":"","text":"Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price. Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1. Companies often aren't looking to halve their stock price by offering a two-for-one split; they may think a smaller figure like 50% or even smaller is preferable, to fine tune their stock price (and thus P/E ratio and EPS figures) similar to industry competitors or to companies with similar market capitalization. In such situations they can offer a split that's X-for-Y with X>Y, like a 3-for-2, 5-for-3 or similar. These are relatively uncommon, but they do happen; Home Depot's first stock split, in 1987, was a 3-for-2. Other ratios are rare, and MSFT has only ever been split 2-for-1. So, it's most likely that you ended up with the extra sixth of a share through dividend reinvestment or a broker policy allowing fractional-share investment."},{"docid":"354638","title":"","text":"\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\""},{"docid":"348424","title":"","text":"You are incorrect in saying that you have a capital gains of $0. You either have no capital gains activity, because you haven't realized it or you have an unrealized capital gains of -$10k. If you were to sell immediately after receiving the dividend you would end up as a wash investment wise - the 10k of dividend offsetting the 10k capital wash. Though due to different tax treatments of money you may be slightly negative with respect to taxes. You are taxed when you receive the money. And you realized that 10k in dividends - even if you didn't want too. In the future if this bothers you. You need to pay attention to the dividend pay out dates for funds. But then just after they payout a dividend and have drain their cash account. The issue is that you unknowingly bought 90k of stock and 10k of cash. This information is laid out in the fund documentation, which you should be reviewing before investing in any new fund."},{"docid":"478711","title":"","text":"As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office."},{"docid":"403755","title":"","text":"\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"3118\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"170318\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"403701\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"22207\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \\\"\\\"dilute\\\"\\\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \\\"\\\"nominal value\\\"\\\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \\\"\\\"look\\\"\\\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \\\"\\\"survived\\\"\\\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"162916\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"511559\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \\\"\\\"Target\\\"\\\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"244813\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \\\"\\\"why would I care?\\\"\\\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"315345\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"281841\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \\\"\\\"basket\\\"\\\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \\\"\\\"DJI 30\\\"\\\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"354136\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \\\"\\\"buying a dividend\\\"\\\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"575554\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"522040\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The company was paying \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \\\"\\\"too high,\\\"\\\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \\\"\\\"most\\\"\\\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \\\"\\\"stingy,\\\"\\\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"315748\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"63296\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \\\"\\\"But wait,\\\"\\\" you say, \\\"\\\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\\\"\\\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \\\"\\\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\\\"\\\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"160140\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"299284\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"11032\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \\\"\\\"dividend yield traps.\\\"\\\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \\\"\\\"unusually\\\"\\\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \\\"\\\"unusually\\\"\\\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"1034\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \\\"\\\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\\\"\\\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \\\"\\\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\\\"\\\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"290831\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"46818\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"399345\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"365627\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"521996\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Good for you! At your age, you should definitely consider investing some of your hard-earned and un-needed money in stocks with the long-term goal of having your retirement funded. The time horizon that you'd have would be vastly superior to that of millions of others, who will wait until their thirties or even forties to begin investing in stocks, giving your compound interest prospects the extra time anyone needs for a spectacular vertical incline in your later years. Make sure to sign up to automatically re-invest the dividend payouts of your stocks, please. (If you don't already know how being young and investing well in your early years is more powerful than starting out ten to twenty years later, do a little research on \\\"\\\"Compound Interest\\\"\\\"). Make sure you monitor your investments. Being young means you have time to correct your investments (sell and buy other assets) if the businesses you initially selected are no longer good investments.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"565765\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"89714\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! ..\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"394226\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price. Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1. Companies often aren't looking to halve their stock price by offering a two-for-one split; they may think a smaller figure like 50% or even smaller is preferable, to fine tune their stock price (and thus P/E ratio and EPS figures) similar to industry competitors or to companies with similar market capitalization. In such situations they can offer a split that's X-for-Y with X>Y, like a 3-for-2, 5-for-3 or similar. These are relatively uncommon, but they do happen; Home Depot's first stock split, in 1987, was a 3-for-2. Other ratios are rare, and MSFT has only ever been split 2-for-1. So, it's most likely that you ended up with the extra sixth of a share through dividend reinvestment or a broker policy allowing fractional-share investment.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"354638\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \\\"\\\"worth\\\"\\\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \\\"\\\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\\\"\\\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \\\"\\\"inherent value\\\"\\\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \\\"\\\"worth something\\\"\\\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"348424\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You are incorrect in saying that you have a capital gains of $0. You either have no capital gains activity, because you haven't realized it or you have an unrealized capital gains of -$10k. If you were to sell immediately after receiving the dividend you would end up as a wash investment wise - the 10k of dividend offsetting the 10k capital wash. Though due to different tax treatments of money you may be slightly negative with respect to taxes. You are taxed when you receive the money. And you realized that 10k in dividends - even if you didn't want too. In the future if this bothers you. You need to pay attention to the dividend pay out dates for funds. But then just after they payout a dividend and have drain their cash account. The issue is that you unknowingly bought 90k of stock and 10k of cash. This information is laid out in the fund documentation, which you should be reviewing before investing in any new fund.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"478711\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"403755\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":91,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7294"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Direct access to the currency exchange market"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"10726","title":"","text":"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"10726\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"294718","title":"","text":"Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange"},{"docid":"433023","title":"","text":"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices."},{"docid":"484891","title":"","text":"\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\""},{"docid":"61864","title":"","text":"\"What is being described in Longson's answer, though helpful, is perhaps more similar to a financial spread bet. Exactly like a bookmaker, the provider of a spread bet takes the other side of the bet, and is counter party to your \"\"trade\"\". A CFD is also a bet between two parties. Now, if the CFD provider uses a market maker model, then this is exactly the same as with a spread bet and the provider is the counter party. However, if the provider uses a direct market access model then the counter party to your contract is another CFD trader, and the provider is just acting as an intermediary to bring you together (basically doing the job of both a brokerage and an exchange). A CFD entered into through a direct market access provider is in many ways similar to a Futures contract. Critically though, the contract is traded 'over-the-counter' and not on any centralized and regulated exchange. This is the reason that CFDs are not permitted in the US - the providers are not authorized as exchanges. Whichever model your CFD provider uses, it is best to think of the contract as a 'bet' on the future price movements of the underlying stock or commodity, in much the same way as with any other derivative instrument such as futures, forwards, swaps, or options. Finally, note that because you don't actually own the underlying stock (just as Longson has highlighted) you won't be entitled to any of the additional benefits that can come with ownership of a stock, such as dividend payments or the right to attend shareholder meetings. RESPONSE TO QUESTION So if I understand correctly, the money gained through a direct market access model comes from other investors in the same CFD who happened to have invested in the \"\"wrong\"\" direction the asset was presumed to take. What happens then, if no one is betting in the opposite direction of my investment. Your understanding is correct. If literally nobody is betting in the opposite direction to you, then you will not be able to trade. This is true for any derivative market; if suddenly every single buyer were to remove their bids from the S&P futures, then no seller would be able to sell. This is a very extreme scenario, as the S&P futures market is incredibly liquid (loads of buyers and sellers at all times). However, if something like this does happen (the flash crash of 2010, for example), then the centralized futures exchanges such as the CME have safeguards in place - the market become locked-limit so that it can only fall so far, there may be no buyers below the lock limit price, but the market cannot fall through it. CFD providers are not obliged to provide such safeguards, which is why regulators in the US don't permit them to operate. It may be the case that if you're trying to buy a CFD for a thinly traded and ill-liquid stock there will be no seller available. One possibility is that the provider will offer a 'hybrid' model, and in the absence of an independent counter party they will take the opposite side of your bet, and then offset their risk by taking an opposing position in the underlying stock.\""},{"docid":"123649","title":"","text":"It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?"},{"docid":"535340","title":"","text":"\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\""},{"docid":"332924","title":"","text":"\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\""},{"docid":"558218","title":"","text":"\"To expand on keshlam's answer: A direct feed does not involve a website of any kind. Each exchange publishes its order/trade feed(s) onto a packet network where subscribers have machines listening and reacting. Let's call the moment when a trade occurs inside an exchange's matching engine \"\"T0\"\". An exchange then publishes the specifics of that trade as above, and the moment when that information is first available to subscribers is T1. In some cases, T1 - T0 is a few microseconds; in other (notorious) cases, it can be as much as 100 milliseconds (100,000x longer). Because it's expensive for a subscriber to run a machine on each exchange's network -- and also because it requires a team of engineers devoted to understanding each exchange's individual publication protocols -- it seems unlikely that Google pays for direct access. Instead Google most likely pays another company who is a subscriber on each exchange around the world (let's say Reuters) to forward their incoming information to Google. Reuters then charges Google and other customers according to how fast the customer wants the forwarded information. Reuters has to parse the info it gets at T1, check it for errors, and translate it into a format that Google (and other customers) can understand. Let's say they finish all that work and put their new packets on the internet at time T2. Then the slow crawl across the internet begins. Some 5-100 milliseconds later your website of choice gets its pre-processed data at time T3. Even though it's preprocessed, your favorite website has to unpack the data, store it in some sort of database, and push it onto their website at time T4. A sophisticated website might then force a refresh of your browser at time T4 to show you the new information. But this forced refresh involves yet another slow crawl across the internet from where your website is based to your home computer, competing with your neighbor's 24/7 Netflix stream, etc. Then your browser (with its 83 plugins and banner ads everywhere) has to refresh, and you finally see the update at T5. So, a thousand factors come into play, but even assuming that Google is doing the most expensive and labor-intensive thing it can and that all the networks between you and Google and the exchange are as short as they can be, you're not going to hear about a trade -- even a massive, market-moving trade -- for anywhere from 500 milliseconds to 5 seconds after T0. And in a more realistic world that time will be 10-30 seconds. This is what Google calls \"\"Realtime\"\" on that disclaimer page, because they feel they're getting that info to you as fast as they possibly can (for free). Meanwhile, the computers that actually subscribe to an exchange heard about the trade way back at time T1 and acted on that information in a few microseconds. That's almost certainly before T2 and definitely way way before T3. The market for a particular instrument could change direction 5 times before Google even shows the first trade. So if you want true realtime access, you must subscribe to the exchange feed or, as keshlam suggests, sign up with a broker that provides its own optimized market feeds to you. (Note: This is not an endorsement of trading through brokers.)\""},{"docid":"288977","title":"","text":"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets."},{"docid":"179527","title":"","text":"If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle."},{"docid":"595261","title":"","text":"You can get direct market access (DMA) but you have to pay for data, as this is part of the exchanges data plan, and there are plenty of other fees that are passed straight down to you. Your clearing firm also has fees that are passed on to you. In general you are looking at $150 a month on the low side, in data and software fees. If you wanted pure access, NASDAQ alone charges $6,000 a month last I checked. The different routes data routes to the exchange all have different rules, and they give you rebates for some kinds of orders in some conditions. Brokers nowadays usually assume this responsibility (including collecting the rebates lol), at the very least, and charge an average price for routing your orders, a price that fits into their business plan and their target audience. Hope that helps."},{"docid":"164200","title":"","text":"CFD providers typically offer CFDs to investors using either the direct market access (DMA) model or the market maker (MM) model. Direct Market Access The DMA model gives you access to trade the Underlying instrument on the relevant Exchange from which the CFD is then derived. All CFD Transactions under the DMA model have corresponding trades in the Underlying instrument. Under the DMA model, providers typically charge their clients Commission based on the notional contract value of the CFD. Market Maker The MM model uses the price of the Underlying instrument to derive the price of the CFD that is offered. Trading under the MM model does not necessarily mean that your CFD will be reflected by a corresponding trade in the Underlying instrument. Under the MM model each CFD Transaction creates a direct financial exposure for the provider, which may or may not be hedged in the Underlying instrument. Where the financial exposure is not hedged, the market risk may increase for the market maker. The MM model enables the provider to offer CFDs against synthetic assets, even if there is little Liquidity in the Underlying instrument, which can result in a wider range of products on offer than with the DMA model. Volatility and Illiquidity in the Underlying instrument can affect the pricing of MM CFDs. The MM model can charge its clients Commission based on the notional contract value or it can incorporate costs and fees in the dealing Spread, which represents the difference in price at which the issuer is prepared to Buy and Sell the CFD. What Do I use and why? I have traded with both DMA and MM models and prefer the MM. The big advantage with MM is that they will provide a market even when the underlying is very illiquid and only might have a few trades each day. Regarding the spread of the MM to the spread of the underlying, I have found the MM to be practically in line with the underlying spread about 95% of the time. The other 5% it may have been slightly wider than the spread of the underlying by usually 1c or 2c. Most MMs aim to give you the best spread they can because they want to keep your business. If they gave too wide a spread (compared to the underlying) it wouldn't be long before they had no customers."},{"docid":"474449","title":"","text":"\"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some \"\"dumb money\"\"/\"\"muppet\"\" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true. Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions \"\"high trading activity\"\", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires \"\"*easily* buying *or* selling an asset\"\". If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do \"\"supply liquidity\"\". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about \"\"only let the professionals play the market\"\", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so.\""},{"docid":"293483","title":"","text":"I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage."},{"docid":"87057","title":"","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."},{"docid":"279151","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"217727","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"381338","title":"","text":"It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying."},{"docid":"580757","title":"","text":"If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are]."},{"docid":"518721","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"416975","title":"","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."},{"docid":"447303","title":"","text":"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose)."},{"docid":"343489","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"32485","title":"","text":"Volume @ 0 doesn't mean that there are no buyers and sellers, it just means that there hasn't been any trades done yet. What you need to look for are the bids and offers (for selling and buying, respectively). For further expiration and NTM or IT options there will almost always be a bid and an offer (but it may be very wide). Now, in case where there is 0 bid (no one is willing to buy), you may still have a chance if the option has some value in it. For that - you need your broker to try to shop it to market making firms. Now, depending on who your broker is, this may or may not be possible. Alternatively, if you have DMA (direct market access) to the options exchanges, you can try to put in an offer of your own and wait for someone to execute against you, however do not expect to be traded with unless your price is out of line with the cost. However, in wide markets, you can try Lampost options (they may give you price improvement) or try to offer very close to the bid. You may save yourself a penny or two and perhaps get a rebate if you are using BATSO or NASDAQO markets (if you have DMA and pass-through exchange fees)."},{"docid":"458635","title":"","text":"\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\""},{"docid":"92462","title":"","text":"Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN."},{"docid":"439779","title":"","text":"I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission."},{"docid":"450694","title":"","text":"\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\""},{"docid":"17469","title":"","text":"\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \"\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\"\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \"\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\"\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\""},{"docid":"322168","title":"","text":"\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"294718\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"433023\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"484891\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \\\"\\\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\\\"\\\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"61864\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"What is being described in Longson's answer, though helpful, is perhaps more similar to a financial spread bet. Exactly like a bookmaker, the provider of a spread bet takes the other side of the bet, and is counter party to your \\\"\\\"trade\\\"\\\". A CFD is also a bet between two parties. Now, if the CFD provider uses a market maker model, then this is exactly the same as with a spread bet and the provider is the counter party. However, if the provider uses a direct market access model then the counter party to your contract is another CFD trader, and the provider is just acting as an intermediary to bring you together (basically doing the job of both a brokerage and an exchange). A CFD entered into through a direct market access provider is in many ways similar to a Futures contract. Critically though, the contract is traded 'over-the-counter' and not on any centralized and regulated exchange. This is the reason that CFDs are not permitted in the US - the providers are not authorized as exchanges. Whichever model your CFD provider uses, it is best to think of the contract as a 'bet' on the future price movements of the underlying stock or commodity, in much the same way as with any other derivative instrument such as futures, forwards, swaps, or options. Finally, note that because you don't actually own the underlying stock (just as Longson has highlighted) you won't be entitled to any of the additional benefits that can come with ownership of a stock, such as dividend payments or the right to attend shareholder meetings. RESPONSE TO QUESTION So if I understand correctly, the money gained through a direct market access model comes from other investors in the same CFD who happened to have invested in the \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" direction the asset was presumed to take. What happens then, if no one is betting in the opposite direction of my investment. Your understanding is correct. If literally nobody is betting in the opposite direction to you, then you will not be able to trade. This is true for any derivative market; if suddenly every single buyer were to remove their bids from the S&P futures, then no seller would be able to sell. This is a very extreme scenario, as the S&P futures market is incredibly liquid (loads of buyers and sellers at all times). However, if something like this does happen (the flash crash of 2010, for example), then the centralized futures exchanges such as the CME have safeguards in place - the market become locked-limit so that it can only fall so far, there may be no buyers below the lock limit price, but the market cannot fall through it. CFD providers are not obliged to provide such safeguards, which is why regulators in the US don't permit them to operate. It may be the case that if you're trying to buy a CFD for a thinly traded and ill-liquid stock there will be no seller available. One possibility is that the provider will offer a 'hybrid' model, and in the absence of an independent counter party they will take the opposite side of your bet, and then offset their risk by taking an opposing position in the underlying stock.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"123649\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"535340\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \\\"\\\"self-directed\\\"\\\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \\\"\\\"unmanaged index funds\\\"\\\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \\\"\\\"currency hedged\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"unhedged\\\"\\\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" strategies and \\\"\\\"put write\\\"\\\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"332924\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \\\"\\\"ETF Securities\\\"\\\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \\\"\\\"ETF Securities\\\"\\\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"558218\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"To expand on keshlam's answer: A direct feed does not involve a website of any kind. Each exchange publishes its order/trade feed(s) onto a packet network where subscribers have machines listening and reacting. Let's call the moment when a trade occurs inside an exchange's matching engine \\\"\\\"T0\\\"\\\". An exchange then publishes the specifics of that trade as above, and the moment when that information is first available to subscribers is T1. In some cases, T1 - T0 is a few microseconds; in other (notorious) cases, it can be as much as 100 milliseconds (100,000x longer). Because it's expensive for a subscriber to run a machine on each exchange's network -- and also because it requires a team of engineers devoted to understanding each exchange's individual publication protocols -- it seems unlikely that Google pays for direct access. Instead Google most likely pays another company who is a subscriber on each exchange around the world (let's say Reuters) to forward their incoming information to Google. Reuters then charges Google and other customers according to how fast the customer wants the forwarded information. Reuters has to parse the info it gets at T1, check it for errors, and translate it into a format that Google (and other customers) can understand. Let's say they finish all that work and put their new packets on the internet at time T2. Then the slow crawl across the internet begins. Some 5-100 milliseconds later your website of choice gets its pre-processed data at time T3. Even though it's preprocessed, your favorite website has to unpack the data, store it in some sort of database, and push it onto their website at time T4. A sophisticated website might then force a refresh of your browser at time T4 to show you the new information. But this forced refresh involves yet another slow crawl across the internet from where your website is based to your home computer, competing with your neighbor's 24/7 Netflix stream, etc. Then your browser (with its 83 plugins and banner ads everywhere) has to refresh, and you finally see the update at T5. So, a thousand factors come into play, but even assuming that Google is doing the most expensive and labor-intensive thing it can and that all the networks between you and Google and the exchange are as short as they can be, you're not going to hear about a trade -- even a massive, market-moving trade -- for anywhere from 500 milliseconds to 5 seconds after T0. And in a more realistic world that time will be 10-30 seconds. This is what Google calls \\\"\\\"Realtime\\\"\\\" on that disclaimer page, because they feel they're getting that info to you as fast as they possibly can (for free). Meanwhile, the computers that actually subscribe to an exchange heard about the trade way back at time T1 and acted on that information in a few microseconds. That's almost certainly before T2 and definitely way way before T3. The market for a particular instrument could change direction 5 times before Google even shows the first trade. So if you want true realtime access, you must subscribe to the exchange feed or, as keshlam suggests, sign up with a broker that provides its own optimized market feeds to you. (Note: This is not an endorsement of trading through brokers.)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"288977\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"179527\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"595261\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You can get direct market access (DMA) but you have to pay for data, as this is part of the exchanges data plan, and there are plenty of other fees that are passed straight down to you. Your clearing firm also has fees that are passed on to you. In general you are looking at $150 a month on the low side, in data and software fees. If you wanted pure access, NASDAQ alone charges $6,000 a month last I checked. The different routes data routes to the exchange all have different rules, and they give you rebates for some kinds of orders in some conditions. Brokers nowadays usually assume this responsibility (including collecting the rebates lol), at the very least, and charge an average price for routing your orders, a price that fits into their business plan and their target audience. Hope that helps.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"164200\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"CFD providers typically offer CFDs to investors using either the direct market access (DMA) model or the market maker (MM) model. Direct Market Access The DMA model gives you access to trade the Underlying instrument on the relevant Exchange from which the CFD is then derived. All CFD Transactions under the DMA model have corresponding trades in the Underlying instrument. Under the DMA model, providers typically charge their clients Commission based on the notional contract value of the CFD. Market Maker The MM model uses the price of the Underlying instrument to derive the price of the CFD that is offered. Trading under the MM model does not necessarily mean that your CFD will be reflected by a corresponding trade in the Underlying instrument. Under the MM model each CFD Transaction creates a direct financial exposure for the provider, which may or may not be hedged in the Underlying instrument. Where the financial exposure is not hedged, the market risk may increase for the market maker. The MM model enables the provider to offer CFDs against synthetic assets, even if there is little Liquidity in the Underlying instrument, which can result in a wider range of products on offer than with the DMA model. Volatility and Illiquidity in the Underlying instrument can affect the pricing of MM CFDs. The MM model can charge its clients Commission based on the notional contract value or it can incorporate costs and fees in the dealing Spread, which represents the difference in price at which the issuer is prepared to Buy and Sell the CFD. What Do I use and why? I have traded with both DMA and MM models and prefer the MM. The big advantage with MM is that they will provide a market even when the underlying is very illiquid and only might have a few trades each day. Regarding the spread of the MM to the spread of the underlying, I have found the MM to be practically in line with the underlying spread about 95% of the time. The other 5% it may have been slightly wider than the spread of the underlying by usually 1c or 2c. Most MMs aim to give you the best spread they can because they want to keep your business. If they gave too wide a spread (compared to the underlying) it wouldn't be long before they had no customers.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"474449\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some \\\"\\\"dumb money\\\"\\\"/\\\"\\\"muppet\\\"\\\" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true. Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions \\\"\\\"high trading activity\\\"\\\", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires \\\"\\\"*easily* buying *or* selling an asset\\\"\\\". If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do \\\"\\\"supply liquidity\\\"\\\". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about \\\"\\\"only let the professionals play the market\\\"\\\", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"293483\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"87057\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"279151\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"217727\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"381338\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It will cost the same no matter what currency you use, unless you have access to a deal with a currency exchange that gives you an especially favourable conversion rate for a particular currency. If the current exchange rates are US$1.70 to the £, CA$1.80 to the £ and HK$12.50 to the £, then £1, US$1.70, CA$1.80 and HK$12.50 are just four different ways of writing the same amount of money. So whether you pay in US$, CA$ or HK$ it's the same amount of money that you're paying.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"580757\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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].\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"518721\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"416975\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"447303\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"343489\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"32485\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Volume @ 0 doesn't mean that there are no buyers and sellers, it just means that there hasn't been any trades done yet. What you need to look for are the bids and offers (for selling and buying, respectively). For further expiration and NTM or IT options there will almost always be a bid and an offer (but it may be very wide). Now, in case where there is 0 bid (no one is willing to buy), you may still have a chance if the option has some value in it. For that - you need your broker to try to shop it to market making firms. Now, depending on who your broker is, this may or may not be possible. Alternatively, if you have DMA (direct market access) to the options exchanges, you can try to put in an offer of your own and wait for someone to execute against you, however do not expect to be traded with unless your price is out of line with the cost. However, in wide markets, you can try Lampost options (they may give you price improvement) or try to offer very close to the bid. You may save yourself a penny or two and perhaps get a rebate if you are using BATSO or NASDAQO markets (if you have DMA and pass-through exchange fees).\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"458635\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \\\"\\\"designated stock exchange\\\"\\\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \\\"\\\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\\\"\\\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"92462\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"439779\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"450694\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \\\"\\\"control\\\"\\\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"17469\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \\\"\\\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\\\"\\\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \\\"\\\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\\\"\\\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"322168\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \\\"\\\"Flash Boys\\\"\\\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \\\"\\\"innovation\\\"\\\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \\\"\\\"Too Big To Fail\\\"\\\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \\\"\\\"reason\\\"\\\" for the current state of affairs.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":92,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4765"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Where do I-Bonds fit into personal finance plans?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"207779","title":"","text":"tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"207779\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"451301","title":"","text":"\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\""},{"docid":"501651","title":"","text":"Start with his website, specifically his seven steps. Most everything else is around motivating people to actually do the plan. As he often says personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance, by which he means that things that make sense financially (paying off high interest debt first) don't necessarily motivate action (so instead pay off the smallest debt first to get motivation). Really the rest is details around those seven concepts. On his site there is a link to a free one-hour podcast for the iPod, and you can pay for the full three hours of his radio show on podcast. He started on radio, and it is probably his best format. The reason Dave Ramsey has limited appeal beyond the US is that he is explicitly evangelical. He views his system as an extension of his Christian beliefs. That sells very well in parts of the US, but doesn't port very well. There is actually nothing religious in his program, other than the occasional reference to biblical verses in an attempt to tie his program into his religion, but people who are really interested and want to teach his program, not just practice it, are going to find they need to be an Evangelical (or at least a Christian) to fit in. Addendum: I should mention that Dave Ramsey is changing the FPU program (and I expect it will trickle into other things) to be more explicitly (although apparently not overtly) religious and have a stronger emphasis on budgeting. See here."},{"docid":"168983","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"115055","title":"","text":"Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)"},{"docid":"481683","title":"","text":"\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\""},{"docid":"351340","title":"","text":"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions."},{"docid":"570611","title":"","text":"\"I think it's great that you want to contribute. Course Instructor You may want to take a look at becoming an instructor for a course like Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. These are commonly offered through churches and other community venues for a fee. This may be a good fit if you want to focus on basic financial literacy, setting up and sticking to a budget, and getting their financial \"\"house\"\" in order. It may not be a good fit if you don't want to teach an existing curriculum, or if you find the tenets of the course too unpalatable. A significant number of the people in Dave's audience are close to or in the middle of a financial meltdown, and so his advice includes controversial ideas such as avoiding credit altogether, often because that's how they got into their current mess. Counselor If you want to run your own show, I know of several people who have built their own practice that is run along the lines of a counselor charging hourly rates, and they work with couples who are having money problems. Building a reputation and a network of referring counselors and professionals is key here, and definitely seems like it would require a full-time commitment. I would avoid \"\"credit counseling\"\" and the like. Most of these organizations are focused on restructuring credit card debt, not spending signficant time on behavioral change. You don't need a series 7, 63, 65 etc. or even a CFA. I've previously acquired a number of these and can confirm that they are investment credentials that are intended to help you get a job and/or get more business as a broker or conventional financial planner, i.e. salesperson of securities. The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"86304","title":"","text":"\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\""},{"docid":"439010","title":"","text":"It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand."},{"docid":"499509","title":"","text":"\"Be familiar with and able to verbally run through how to do a discounted cash flow analysis. Additionally be up to date with current financial market(s) trends, both domestically and globally. Know where the U.S bond yields are trading, and where they are going, interest rates too. Apart from that big picture stuff I wouldn't stress too much about technicals because he/she may not even ask about them at all if its more of a \"\"fit\"\" interview.\""},{"docid":"332229","title":"","text":"Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses. Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office. If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&A activity, which is the real cool shit. That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?"},{"docid":"586632","title":"","text":"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you."},{"docid":"441866","title":"","text":"\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \"\"wrong\"\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\""},{"docid":"564468","title":"","text":"Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned."},{"docid":"566459","title":"","text":"\"Your co-workers all had kids when they where 16-19? What sort of place are you working?!? In my career, people under 30 with kids were very much the minority. I've mostly worked in fortune 500 companies and your description sounds really foreign to me. Most of my coworkers started having kids in their early to mid 30s. I'm 35 and childless and not singled out by that at all. I don't see why being \"\"gym fit\"\" or having a college degree should entitle you special treatment. In my experience, neither are good indicators of a person's ability to perform. What it all comes down to is fit; \"\"job fit\"\" that is. Why are you still there? Are you trying to leave? Which part of the world are you in? In the end companies are about teams, merit is defined by who can do something the best while fitting into the company's culture and team. Just because you're the more technically savvy, doesn't mean you the best person for the job. When you're running a business there is a lot that must get considered before promoting someone. Remember, in companies, promotions are usually seized and rarely given. I mean, if you're not able to seize the promotion, why would be considered worthy of it?\""},{"docid":"60282","title":"","text":"\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\""},{"docid":"149357","title":"","text":"\"While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it. I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits? I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price. If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable. The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable. If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called \"\"stocks\"\" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase \"\"bonds\"\", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market. If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks. The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance.\""},{"docid":"583666","title":"","text":"Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!"},{"docid":"328770","title":"","text":"\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\""},{"docid":"170871","title":"","text":"\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \"\"spending money\"\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \"\"an amount\"\" and this should be split equally.\""},{"docid":"384626","title":"","text":"\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\""},{"docid":"497359","title":"","text":"You should also update your Net Worth Statement as well as an inventory of all your assets. Unfortunately these are extremely time consuming, but in the event that you pass away your loved ones will know all of your finances and it will be easier for them in a very difficult time. The Net Worth Statement compiles just that, your net worth. The net worth is compiled by subtracting your liabilities from you assets. Assets include things such as cash, money in accounts, all estimated value of your household items, any life insurance, bonds, mutual bonds, and retirement money. The liabilities include amounts such as your mortgage, second mortgage, car loans, unsecured loans, credit cards, student loans, and life insurance loans. This statement is a great way to track year to year how you are doing on your finances and if you are where you need to be in order to retire when you would like. The Inventory is also very important. This is used in the event that you have a fire or some sort of disaster that requires you to give a statement of any items you had in your home. This is a very difficult thing to go through, and having this statement ready to hand over only makes thing easier. There are a couple ways to do this. Some people take pictures of everything they have in their house and make notes of prices and values, some people take a video of the whole house, and some people write down item by item on the computer or on a piece of paper. Whatever way you would like to do it is fine, what works for one person does not necessarily work for the other."},{"docid":"15172","title":"","text":"\"I cannot stress this enough, so I'll just repeat it: Don't plan your finances around your credit score. Don't even think about your credit score at all. Plan a budget an stick to it. Make sure you include short and long term savings in your budget. Pay your bills on time. Use credit responsibly. Do all of these things, and your credit rating will take care of itself. Don't try to plan your finances around raising it. On the subject of 0% financing specifically, my rule of thumb is to only ever use it when I have enough money saved up to buy the thing outright, and even then only if my budget will still balance with the added cost of repaying the loan. Other people have other rules, including not taking such loans at all, and you should develop a rule that works for you (but you should have a rule). One rule shouldn't have is \"\"do whatever will optimize your credit score\"\" because you shouldn't plan your finances around your credit score. All things considered, I think the most important thing in your situation is to make sure that you don't let the teaser rate tempt you into making purchases you wouldn't otherwise make. You're not really getting free money; you're just shifting around the time frame for payment, and only within a limited window at that. Also, be sure to read the fine print in the credit agreement; they can be filled with gotchas and pitfalls. In particular, if you don't clear the balance by the end of the introductory rate period, you can sometimes incur interest charges retroactively to the date of purchase. Make sure you know your terms and conditions cold. It sounds like you're just getting started, so best of luck, and remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience can be the most effective tool in your personal finance arsenal. p.s. Don't plan your finances around your credit score.\""},{"docid":"239271","title":"","text":"Big money, by vitue of its own existence, produces value. What's a person to do with it? Stuff it under a mattress and earn 0 yield? No. If you want safety, you'll put it in AAA rated US gov't bonds and help fund the government. If you want yield, you'll put it in broadly diversified equities investments, small companies, big companies, energy companies, tech companies, media companies, and so on, and soak up the net gain while injecting much needed capital investment directly into those industries, financing start up costs like construction and equipment procurement costs, as well as staffing costs. Yes, big money absolutely creates value. The trains, cars, roads, and sidewalks you travel through to get to work? All financed by filthy rich people money. The building you work in and the equipment you use? Likely financed by filthy rich people money as well. Its called financial intermediation and capital arbitrage, and you can thank your Gods you live in a country where the government allows it to operate efficiently."},{"docid":"282376","title":"","text":"First of all, I think I'll clear off some confusion in the topic. The Sterling Ratio is a very simple investment portfolio measurement that fits nicely to the topic of personal finance, although not so much to a foreign exchange trading system. The Sterling Ratio is mainly used in the context of hedge funds to measure its risk-reward ratio for long term investments. To do so, it has been adapted to the following in order to appear more like the Sharpe Ratio: I Suppose this is why you question the Average Largest Draw-down. I'll come back to that later. It's original definition, suggested by the company Deane Sterling Jones, is a little different and perhaps the one you should use if you want to measure your trading system's long term risk-reward ratio, which is as followed: Note: Average Annual Draw-down has to be negative on the above-mentioned formula. This one is very simple to calculate and the one to use if you want to measure any portfolio's long-term results, such an example of a 5 or 10 years period and calculate the average of each years largest drawdown. To answer @Dheer's comment, this specific measurement can also be used in personal investments portfolio, which is considered a topic related to personal finance. Back to the first one, which answers your question. It's used in most cases in investment strategies, such as hedging, not trading systems. By hedging I mean that in these cases long term investments are made in anti-correlated securities to obtain a diversified portfolio with a very stable growth. This one is calculated normally annually because you rely on the Annual Risk-Free Rate. Having that in mind I think you can guess that the Average Largest Drawdown is the average between the Largest/Maximum Drawdown from each security in the portfolio. And this doesn't make sense in a trading system. Example: If you have invested in 5 different securities where we calculated the Largest Draw-down for each, such as represented in the following array: MaxDD[5] = { 0.12, 0.23, 0.06, 0.36, 0.09 }, in this case your Average Largest Draw-down is the average(MaxDD) that equals 0.172 or 17,2% If your portfolio's annual return is 15% and the Risk-free Rate is 10%, your Sterling Ratio SR = (0.15 - 0.10)/0.172, which result to 0.29. The higher the rate better is the risk-reward ratio of your portfolio. I suggest in your case to only use the original Sterling Ratio to calculate your long-term risk-reward, in any other case I suggest looking at the Sharpe and Sortino ratios instead."},{"docid":"421987","title":"","text":"Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks."},{"docid":"349237","title":"","text":"\"Budgeting is a tool for planning, not for execution. It sounds like you don't have a problem BUDGETING (planning what to spend on what things) but rather with the execution of your plan. That is - living frugally. This is primarily an issue of self control and personal psychology - not an issue with the mechanics of budgeting and finance, which explains why the most popular personal finance \"\"gurus\"\" (Dave Ramsey, Suze Ormond) deal as much with your relationship to money and spending as they do with financial knowledge. There is no easy answer here, but you can learn to spend less. One helpful thought is to realize that whatever your current income is, someone in your community is currently making less than that and surviving. What would you do differently if your real, actual income was $100 or $200 less than it is currently. If your food budget is a concern, learn to cook cheaply. (Often, this is more healthy.) You mentioned schooling, so I assume you are on or near a college campus. Many colleges have all sorts of free-food opportunities. (I used to eat free vegetarian meals weekly at a Hare Krsna temple. Price of admission: listening to the monk read from the Bhagavad Gita.) Fast food is, of course, a complete no-no on low-budget living. It probably goes without saying, but just in case you haven't: cancel cable, get a cheap phone plan (Ting is excellent if available in your area), and otherwise see how you can squeeze a few dollars out of your bills. On the subject of frugality, I have found no book more enlightening than: Money Secrets of the Amish: Finding True Abundance in Simplicity, Sharing, and Saving\""},{"docid":"115741","title":"","text":"We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more."},{"docid":"59670","title":"","text":"\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \"\"target date funds\"\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \"\"glide-path\"\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \"\"acquired\"\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\""},{"docid":"495600","title":"","text":"\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"451301\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \\\"\\\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\\\"\\\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"501651\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Start with his website, specifically his seven steps. Most everything else is around motivating people to actually do the plan. As he often says personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance, by which he means that things that make sense financially (paying off high interest debt first) don't necessarily motivate action (so instead pay off the smallest debt first to get motivation). Really the rest is details around those seven concepts. On his site there is a link to a free one-hour podcast for the iPod, and you can pay for the full three hours of his radio show on podcast. He started on radio, and it is probably his best format. The reason Dave Ramsey has limited appeal beyond the US is that he is explicitly evangelical. He views his system as an extension of his Christian beliefs. That sells very well in parts of the US, but doesn't port very well. There is actually nothing religious in his program, other than the occasional reference to biblical verses in an attempt to tie his program into his religion, but people who are really interested and want to teach his program, not just practice it, are going to find they need to be an Evangelical (or at least a Christian) to fit in. Addendum: I should mention that Dave Ramsey is changing the FPU program (and I expect it will trickle into other things) to be more explicitly (although apparently not overtly) religious and have a stronger emphasis on budgeting. See here.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"168983\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"115055\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"481683\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \\\"\\\"lost\\\"\\\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \\\"\\\"make money\\\"\\\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \\\"\\\"make\\\"\\\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \\\"\\\"worst\\\"\\\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"351340\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"570611\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I think it's great that you want to contribute. Course Instructor You may want to take a look at becoming an instructor for a course like Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. These are commonly offered through churches and other community venues for a fee. This may be a good fit if you want to focus on basic financial literacy, setting up and sticking to a budget, and getting their financial \\\"\\\"house\\\"\\\" in order. It may not be a good fit if you don't want to teach an existing curriculum, or if you find the tenets of the course too unpalatable. A significant number of the people in Dave's audience are close to or in the middle of a financial meltdown, and so his advice includes controversial ideas such as avoiding credit altogether, often because that's how they got into their current mess. Counselor If you want to run your own show, I know of several people who have built their own practice that is run along the lines of a counselor charging hourly rates, and they work with couples who are having money problems. Building a reputation and a network of referring counselors and professionals is key here, and definitely seems like it would require a full-time commitment. I would avoid \\\"\\\"credit counseling\\\"\\\" and the like. Most of these organizations are focused on restructuring credit card debt, not spending signficant time on behavioral change. You don't need a series 7, 63, 65 etc. or even a CFA. I've previously acquired a number of these and can confirm that they are investment credentials that are intended to help you get a job and/or get more business as a broker or conventional financial planner, i.e. salesperson of securities. The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"86304\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \\\"\\\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\\\"\\\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \\\"\\\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\\\"\\\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"439010\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"499509\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Be familiar with and able to verbally run through how to do a discounted cash flow analysis. Additionally be up to date with current financial market(s) trends, both domestically and globally. Know where the U.S bond yields are trading, and where they are going, interest rates too. Apart from that big picture stuff I wouldn't stress too much about technicals because he/she may not even ask about them at all if its more of a \\\"\\\"fit\\\"\\\" interview.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"332229\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses. Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office. If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&A activity, which is the real cool shit. That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"586632\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"441866\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"My wife and I maintain seperate accounts. We have the bills split between us so that certain bills are paid by one of us, and other bills by the other. This is not a perfect 50/50 split as we don't make the same amount of money, but comparable enough that neither feels like they're doing all the bills alone. Our investments are similar. That means we each have a pool of money that we can spend on toys or entertainment as we see fit without overspending. Once my bills are paid and my savings are paid for the month, if I want to go buy some DVDs and my wife wants to buy a new lens for the camera, we don't have to agree. We just use our own money and do it. For us that's led to minimal friction or arguments over what to spend money on, simply because we aren't using the same pool. Getting it work requires getting the split right AND having the mindset that the other person is just as entitled to spend their share of the money as you are to spend yours. It really helps to eliminate issues where she spent money that I expected to be able to spend before I could, which can happen in a joint account. (We have no joint accounts, only things like the mortgage are in both our names.) I've been told by more then one person that how we're doing it is \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\", but it works a lot better for us then trying to combine finances ever did. I think it also helps that we're younger, and this seems far less common amongst older couples.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"564468\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"566459\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Your co-workers all had kids when they where 16-19? What sort of place are you working?!? In my career, people under 30 with kids were very much the minority. I've mostly worked in fortune 500 companies and your description sounds really foreign to me. Most of my coworkers started having kids in their early to mid 30s. I'm 35 and childless and not singled out by that at all. I don't see why being \\\"\\\"gym fit\\\"\\\" or having a college degree should entitle you special treatment. In my experience, neither are good indicators of a person's ability to perform. What it all comes down to is fit; \\\"\\\"job fit\\\"\\\" that is. Why are you still there? Are you trying to leave? Which part of the world are you in? In the end companies are about teams, merit is defined by who can do something the best while fitting into the company's culture and team. Just because you're the more technically savvy, doesn't mean you the best person for the job. When you're running a business there is a lot that must get considered before promoting someone. Remember, in companies, promotions are usually seized and rarely given. I mean, if you're not able to seize the promotion, why would be considered worthy of it?\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"60282\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \\\"\\\"that much down on the car\\\"\\\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"149357\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it. I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits? I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price. If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable. The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable. If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called \\\"\\\"stocks\\\"\\\" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase \\\"\\\"bonds\\\"\\\", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market. If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks. The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"583666\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Wikipedia has a nice definition of financial literacy (emphasis below is mine): [...] refers to an individual's ability to make informed judgments and effective decisions about the use and management of their money. Raising interest in personal finance is now a focus of state-run programs in countries including Australia, Japan, the United States and the UK. [...] As for how you can become financially literate, here are some suggestions: Learn about how basic financial products works: bank accounts, mortgages, credit cards, investment accounts, insurance (home, car, life, disability, medical.) Free printed & online materials should be available from your existing financial service providers to help you with your existing products. In particular, learn about the fees, interest, or other charges you may incur with these products. Becoming fee-aware is a step towards financial literacy, since financially literate people compare costs. Seek out additional information on each type of product from unbiased sources (i.e. sources not trying to sell you something.) Get out of debt and stay out of debt. This may take a while. Focus on your highest-interest loans first. Learn the difference between good debt and bad debt. Learn about compound interest. Once you understand compound interest, you'll understand why being in debt is bad for your financial well-being. If you aren't already saving money for retirement, start now. Investigate whether your employer offers an advantageous matched 401(k) plan (or group RRSP/DC plan for Canadians) or a pension plan. If your employer offers a good plan, sign up. If you get to choose your own investments, keep it simple and favor low-cost balanced index funds until you understand the different types of investments. Read the material provided by the plan sponsor, try online tools provided, and seek out additional information from unbiased sources. If your employer doesn't offer an advantageous retirement plan, open an individual retirement account or IRA (or personal RRSP for Canadians.) If your employer does offer a plan, you can set one of these up to save even more. You could start with access to a family of low-cost mutual funds (examples: Vanguard for Americans, or TD eFunds for Canadians) or earn advanced credit by learning about discount brokers and self-directed accounts. Understand how income taxes and other taxes work. If you have an accountant prepare your taxes, ask questions. If you prepare your taxes yourself, understand what you're doing and don't file blind. Seek help if necessary. There are many good books on how income tax works. Software packages that help you self-file often have online help worth reading – read it. Learn about life insurance, medical insurance, disability insurance, wills, living wills & powers of attorney, and estate planning. Death and illness can derail your family's finances. Learn how these things can help. Seek out and read key books on personal finance topics. e.g. Your Money Or Your Life, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes, The Four Pillars of Investing, The Random Walk Guide to Investing, and many more. Seek out and read good personal finance blogs. There's a wealth of information available for free on the Internet, but do check facts and assumptions. Here are some suggested blogs for American readers and some suggested blogs for Canadian readers. Subscribe to a personal finance periodical and read it. Good ones to start with are Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine in the U.S. and MoneySense Magazine in Canada. The business section in your local newspaper may sometimes have personal finance articles worth reading, too. Shameless plug: Ask more questions on this site. The Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange is here to help you learn about money & finance, so you can make better financial decisions. We're all here to learn and help others learn about money. Keep learning!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"328770\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \\\"\\\"seed money\\\"\\\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \\\"\\\"license to print money\\\"\\\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"170871\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \\\"\\\"spending money\\\"\\\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \\\"\\\"an amount\\\"\\\" and this should be split equally.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"384626\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \\\"\\\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\\\"\\\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"497359\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You should also update your Net Worth Statement as well as an inventory of all your assets. Unfortunately these are extremely time consuming, but in the event that you pass away your loved ones will know all of your finances and it will be easier for them in a very difficult time. The Net Worth Statement compiles just that, your net worth. The net worth is compiled by subtracting your liabilities from you assets. Assets include things such as cash, money in accounts, all estimated value of your household items, any life insurance, bonds, mutual bonds, and retirement money. The liabilities include amounts such as your mortgage, second mortgage, car loans, unsecured loans, credit cards, student loans, and life insurance loans. This statement is a great way to track year to year how you are doing on your finances and if you are where you need to be in order to retire when you would like. The Inventory is also very important. This is used in the event that you have a fire or some sort of disaster that requires you to give a statement of any items you had in your home. This is a very difficult thing to go through, and having this statement ready to hand over only makes thing easier. There are a couple ways to do this. Some people take pictures of everything they have in their house and make notes of prices and values, some people take a video of the whole house, and some people write down item by item on the computer or on a piece of paper. Whatever way you would like to do it is fine, what works for one person does not necessarily work for the other.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"15172\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I cannot stress this enough, so I'll just repeat it: Don't plan your finances around your credit score. Don't even think about your credit score at all. Plan a budget an stick to it. Make sure you include short and long term savings in your budget. Pay your bills on time. Use credit responsibly. Do all of these things, and your credit rating will take care of itself. Don't try to plan your finances around raising it. On the subject of 0% financing specifically, my rule of thumb is to only ever use it when I have enough money saved up to buy the thing outright, and even then only if my budget will still balance with the added cost of repaying the loan. Other people have other rules, including not taking such loans at all, and you should develop a rule that works for you (but you should have a rule). One rule shouldn't have is \\\"\\\"do whatever will optimize your credit score\\\"\\\" because you shouldn't plan your finances around your credit score. All things considered, I think the most important thing in your situation is to make sure that you don't let the teaser rate tempt you into making purchases you wouldn't otherwise make. You're not really getting free money; you're just shifting around the time frame for payment, and only within a limited window at that. Also, be sure to read the fine print in the credit agreement; they can be filled with gotchas and pitfalls. In particular, if you don't clear the balance by the end of the introductory rate period, you can sometimes incur interest charges retroactively to the date of purchase. Make sure you know your terms and conditions cold. It sounds like you're just getting started, so best of luck, and remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience can be the most effective tool in your personal finance arsenal. p.s. Don't plan your finances around your credit score.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"239271\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Big money, by vitue of its own existence, produces value. What's a person to do with it? Stuff it under a mattress and earn 0 yield? No. If you want safety, you'll put it in AAA rated US gov't bonds and help fund the government. If you want yield, you'll put it in broadly diversified equities investments, small companies, big companies, energy companies, tech companies, media companies, and so on, and soak up the net gain while injecting much needed capital investment directly into those industries, financing start up costs like construction and equipment procurement costs, as well as staffing costs. Yes, big money absolutely creates value. The trains, cars, roads, and sidewalks you travel through to get to work? All financed by filthy rich people money. The building you work in and the equipment you use? Likely financed by filthy rich people money as well. Its called financial intermediation and capital arbitrage, and you can thank your Gods you live in a country where the government allows it to operate efficiently.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"282376\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"First of all, I think I'll clear off some confusion in the topic. The Sterling Ratio is a very simple investment portfolio measurement that fits nicely to the topic of personal finance, although not so much to a foreign exchange trading system. The Sterling Ratio is mainly used in the context of hedge funds to measure its risk-reward ratio for long term investments. To do so, it has been adapted to the following in order to appear more like the Sharpe Ratio: I Suppose this is why you question the Average Largest Draw-down. I'll come back to that later. It's original definition, suggested by the company Deane Sterling Jones, is a little different and perhaps the one you should use if you want to measure your trading system's long term risk-reward ratio, which is as followed: Note: Average Annual Draw-down has to be negative on the above-mentioned formula. This one is very simple to calculate and the one to use if you want to measure any portfolio's long-term results, such an example of a 5 or 10 years period and calculate the average of each years largest drawdown. To answer @Dheer's comment, this specific measurement can also be used in personal investments portfolio, which is considered a topic related to personal finance. Back to the first one, which answers your question. It's used in most cases in investment strategies, such as hedging, not trading systems. By hedging I mean that in these cases long term investments are made in anti-correlated securities to obtain a diversified portfolio with a very stable growth. This one is calculated normally annually because you rely on the Annual Risk-Free Rate. Having that in mind I think you can guess that the Average Largest Drawdown is the average between the Largest/Maximum Drawdown from each security in the portfolio. And this doesn't make sense in a trading system. Example: If you have invested in 5 different securities where we calculated the Largest Draw-down for each, such as represented in the following array: MaxDD[5] = { 0.12, 0.23, 0.06, 0.36, 0.09 }, in this case your Average Largest Draw-down is the average(MaxDD) that equals 0.172 or 17,2% If your portfolio's annual return is 15% and the Risk-free Rate is 10%, your Sterling Ratio SR = (0.15 - 0.10)/0.172, which result to 0.29. The higher the rate better is the risk-reward ratio of your portfolio. I suggest in your case to only use the original Sterling Ratio to calculate your long-term risk-reward, in any other case I suggest looking at the Sharpe and Sortino ratios instead.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"421987\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"349237\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Budgeting is a tool for planning, not for execution. It sounds like you don't have a problem BUDGETING (planning what to spend on what things) but rather with the execution of your plan. That is - living frugally. This is primarily an issue of self control and personal psychology - not an issue with the mechanics of budgeting and finance, which explains why the most popular personal finance \\\"\\\"gurus\\\"\\\" (Dave Ramsey, Suze Ormond) deal as much with your relationship to money and spending as they do with financial knowledge. There is no easy answer here, but you can learn to spend less. One helpful thought is to realize that whatever your current income is, someone in your community is currently making less than that and surviving. What would you do differently if your real, actual income was $100 or $200 less than it is currently. If your food budget is a concern, learn to cook cheaply. (Often, this is more healthy.) You mentioned schooling, so I assume you are on or near a college campus. Many colleges have all sorts of free-food opportunities. (I used to eat free vegetarian meals weekly at a Hare Krsna temple. Price of admission: listening to the monk read from the Bhagavad Gita.) Fast food is, of course, a complete no-no on low-budget living. It probably goes without saying, but just in case you haven't: cancel cable, get a cheap phone plan (Ting is excellent if available in your area), and otherwise see how you can squeeze a few dollars out of your bills. On the subject of frugality, I have found no book more enlightening than: Money Secrets of the Amish: Finding True Abundance in Simplicity, Sharing, and Saving\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"115741\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"59670\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \\\"\\\"target date funds\\\"\\\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \\\"\\\"glide-path\\\"\\\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \\\"\\\"acquired\\\"\\\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"495600\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Question 1: How do I start? or \\\"\\\"the broker\\\"\\\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":93,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2062"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How would I use Google Finance to find financial data about LinkedIn & its stock?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"150535","title":"","text":"It's been traded publicly for only about a month. I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet."},{"docid":"94792","title":"","text":"\"Remember that \"\"earned\"\" means \"\"earned in profit.\"\" A company like LinkedIn may not be trying to earn any profit, because they believe that they are at the stage in their development where the best thing to do with excess cash is to reinvest it in growing the business. Therefore, profit may not be the best metric at this stage in the company's life cycle.\""},{"docid":"5054","title":"","text":"When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel."},{"docid":"131453","title":"","text":"The most likely answer to your question regarding what the 'market expects' is perhaps that the market expects that currently Linked-In like a lot of other startups has been plunging almost eveything it makes into building the business and brand. So right now the net profits are pretty low percentage of income (roughly 1.5% of revenue) Given the size of the other numbers, it doesn't take a lot of movement in the right direction to get a big change in that tiny final number. The other factor is the gap between their Net and the Income Available.. I think (but I'm making a logical guess here) a large part of that gap was paying off the losses of the prior two years. If that's the case, and everything else is static, then next year's 'available' number ought to at least triple. In order to grow the net, all LI needs is to either continue current trends of growth in expenses relative to costs, keep expenses steady and experience a slight growth in income, or find a way to reduce expenses without having it impact income. Or something in between those three. If we take the first case as an example, income has been roughly doubling every year, but expenses growing less than that. if they were to continue that, but manage to get some economy of scale and have expenses grow at a slower rate, then the jump in net income ought to be substantial. most of the trends you could project end up with a big growth in the bottom line.. but yeah I gotta admit, none of that gets you 117X growth in a single year. So the conclusion I would draw is that the market is trending a few years out and being pretty optimistic given the current PE ratio. Of course you could also conclude that the market is 'social network happy' and LNKD represents one of the few opportunities for the average investor to get in on that given that facebook and myspace are not trading on the open market"},{"docid":"468087","title":"","text":"Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"150535\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It's been traded publicly for only about a month. I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"94792\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Remember that \\\"\\\"earned\\\"\\\" means \\\"\\\"earned in profit.\\\"\\\" A company like LinkedIn may not be trying to earn any profit, because they believe that they are at the stage in their development where the best thing to do with excess cash is to reinvest it in growing the business. Therefore, profit may not be the best metric at this stage in the company's life cycle.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"5054\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"131453\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The most likely answer to your question regarding what the 'market expects' is perhaps that the market expects that currently Linked-In like a lot of other startups has been plunging almost eveything it makes into building the business and brand. So right now the net profits are pretty low percentage of income (roughly 1.5% of revenue) Given the size of the other numbers, it doesn't take a lot of movement in the right direction to get a big change in that tiny final number. The other factor is the gap between their Net and the Income Available.. I think (but I'm making a logical guess here) a large part of that gap was paying off the losses of the prior two years. If that's the case, and everything else is static, then next year's 'available' number ought to at least triple. In order to grow the net, all LI needs is to either continue current trends of growth in expenses relative to costs, keep expenses steady and experience a slight growth in income, or find a way to reduce expenses without having it impact income. Or something in between those three. If we take the first case as an example, income has been roughly doubling every year, but expenses growing less than that. if they were to continue that, but manage to get some economy of scale and have expenses grow at a slower rate, then the jump in net income ought to be substantial. most of the trends you could project end up with a big growth in the bottom line.. but yeah I gotta admit, none of that gets you 117X growth in a single year. So the conclusion I would draw is that the market is trending a few years out and being pretty optimistic given the current PE ratio. Of course you could also conclude that the market is 'social network happy' and LNKD represents one of the few opportunities for the average investor to get in on that given that facebook and myspace are not trading on the open market\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"468087\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"387767","title":"","text":"Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals."},{"docid":"401661","title":"","text":"Definitely makes sense, though it's nothing I know about. My approach would be: research online (Google, find interviews, look at LinkedIn, Vault guides, WSO forums) how people get those jobs & what exactly they entail. Then see (LinkedIn history, etc) how they got there, and find a pattern. Then talk to some (alums of your college, family friends, friends of friends, etc). Then you'll have a much better idea of what you need to do and how to do it."},{"docid":"153353","title":"","text":"I work in finance and I think the biggest mistake you are making at 15 years old is saying that you specifically want to be a financial advisor. I'm not trying to say the job is awful...but most people who are interested in finance would not at all want this job. You will spend 90% of your time trying to find clients. Most of the time it will be through cold-calling people on the phone through some leads you either get through your agency or you paid for online. Or, you have to start annoying friends and family (never do this). For most people, the job is not about finance and it sucks. Once you finally get a client, now you have a conflict of interest in that you want to sell them the high-commission products so that you get paid, but its often not the best product for them. Its actually very easy to become a financial planner, extremely hard to become a successful one. Instead, what I would do, is consider the wider field of finance. There is so much more to finance than being a financial planner. Do you want to become an expert on stocks? Consider equity research. Do you want to help companies fix strategic problems and make a ton of money? Consider consulting. Do you want to help companies raise money by going public? Consider investment banking. You can google the different types of careers online."},{"docid":"524789","title":"","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."},{"docid":"376396","title":"","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."},{"docid":"564007","title":"","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&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com 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 & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS Portfolio My Account HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & 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&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 & 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 & Privacy Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Copyright Slavery Statement Services FT Live Share News Tips Securely Individual Subscriptions Group Subscriptions Republishing Contracts & 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 & Careers Show more Work & Careers links Life & Arts Show more Life & 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"},{"docid":"553377","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"546379","title":"","text":"Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader."},{"docid":"215540","title":"","text":"\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \"\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\"\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \"\"badges\"\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\""},{"docid":"546841","title":"","text":"\"https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Legit after 5 minutes of googling...and using the search bar in reddit for these jobs... Actually, since you edited your response, here's why I found it kinda naive. You have a pretty good gig as a petroleum engineer in a F500 company. The only thing in your description that you're interested in a job is a corporate job. Which is for the most part all professional jobs. Its ok to be curious, but saying \"\"I don't like engineering but I like corporate jobs so tell me about corporate sounding jobs even though google has tons of articles on it\"\" sounds entitled and naive. Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company. Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand. I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance.\""},{"docid":"556283","title":"","text":"Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important. The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time. The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly unpredictable returns. There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much. This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with. Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations. To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity."},{"docid":"281419","title":"","text":"There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't."},{"docid":"239484","title":"","text":"The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps."},{"docid":"397915","title":"","text":"\"For finance, you need to have a strong handle on how to use Excel. I don't mean \"\"I can write some formulas and make a complicated worksheet\"\", I mean \"\"I know the VBA language and can utilize macros and specific coding to streamline processes and eliminate some tasks\"\". Having VBA on your resume is a definite plus, especially in addition to the CFA L1/L2 candidacy. [Here's a great resource for learning VBA](http://www.excel-vba-easy.com/). In addition to VBA, the ability to use R (the stats program) can also be incredibly helpful. That's a whole new beast than Excel, and has amazing capabilities that are almost perfect for finance. [Here's a resource](http://www.statmethods.net/) for learning the programming, but it requires a strong understanding of statistical methods and maybe another stats program like SPSS. If you Google \"\"learn R quickly\"\" or something like that, you can come up with something. It sounds like you're a Seattlite (Amazon, Boeing, Russell), and so am I. If you'd like help networking, feel free to PM me. I'm a recent college grad, and over the past few years, I've built a pretty solid network in the investments community here. I can at least connect you to people that might be able to help out. If nothing else, I can at least give a ton more resources to learn from. Edit: Also, Russell often uses LinkedIn to find new hires to interview. If you have a lot of groups and stuff in common with the HR team, you pop up higher in their searches. Look up their HR team, and find out what groups they're in, what companies they follow, etc. Also, do you know if you want to go into corp. finance or investments? Two very different games.\""},{"docid":"173088","title":"","text":"\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\""},{"docid":"138283","title":"","text":"\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\""},{"docid":"465971","title":"","text":"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy."},{"docid":"171189","title":"","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\""},{"docid":"7981","title":"","text":"\"Hey, I hear ya on this situation. I also graduated from a good school (Finance/Comp Sci) with a mediocre GPA and had difficulty securing a full time position in finance. My best advice is to network the shit out of alumni you can connect to through LinkedIn or your schools alumni network homepage. People are MUCH more open to talking than you would typically think. Like your friends said, getting into IBD as an analyst is ideal as it gives you a great line on your resume, shows you worked hard, and has amazing training. Now comes the really shitty part of this conversation, if you've already graduated college, it's next to impossible to get into a bulge bracket as an analyst. Your best bet in this case would be to try to get into a mid-cap or boutique IB and work your way from there. Again though, networking means 100x more than anything else. Now the good news, investment research is very different from investment banking. Yes, equity research is within an investment bank (sell-side and buy-side), but it is very different from investment banking (see Chinese Walls). It's easier to make the transition into research without formal recruiting than it is to get into IB directly. Couple things to keep in mind, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELL-SIDE AN BUY-SIDE. I'm not talking about just one buys stuff the other tries to get you to buy it. I'm talking about conflicts of interest on the sell-side, personalities, types of research, what your role entails, org structure, etc. SELL-SIDE IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN BUY-SIDE!! Buy-side is MUCH less flexible than sell-side in recruiting, also. Do you currently own stocks, trade, track stocks all day long, etc.? If the answer is no to any of those, buy-side is really really hard. They want people who live and breath investing, markets, news, companies, because that's what they do. Also, training is effectively non-existent on the buy-side due to the size of the shops (some can have $10b with 10 people including admins). Now lets talk sell-side. This is where I'd recommend you put your resources if you're really passionate about it. They tend to hire people without experience more often into entry-level jobs (b/c most are larger investment banks that use research to promote underwriting/investment business). Also, you need to have a pitch, but not as extensive as on the buy-side (those 1-2 pagers I talked about). The best advice I can offer is to hop on a Bloomberg/TR/CapIQ terminal if you can and just start finding email addresses of sell-side analysts (they publish them in their reports), and start writing the analysts directly expressing your interest in the business and your desire to talk with them. Be frank about where you are in your career, but show a true passion for research, and that you are \"\"hungry.\"\" Attach your resume and keep the email short, a few sentences with maybe some bullets about how you could help that company. Spend the time to personalize it to that person. Follow up with a phone call in 1-2 weeks. They will appreciate the candidness and you'll find them to be very receptive. Even if these analysts don't have a job available right there, if they like you, they will pass you on to someone who might. This is how networking works, that guy might not have a job, but someone is always hiring, and its a tight knit community. The other option is to work for any finance firm in some role for 3-5 years then go back to get an MBA. With an MBA from a top school you can basically transition into anything. PM me if you ever want to talk over IM. I'd be happy to chat.\""},{"docid":"171135","title":"","text":"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\""},{"docid":"319568","title":"","text":"\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\""},{"docid":"53993","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"207813","title":"","text":"\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""},{"docid":"217427","title":"","text":"\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""},{"docid":"10098","title":"","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."},{"docid":"306189","title":"","text":"There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing."},{"docid":"92593","title":"","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"},{"docid":"79357","title":"","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. )\""},{"docid":"427229","title":"","text":"Long time Quicken user, but I have Bootcamp on my Mac, and one reason is so I can run Quicken Windows. That's one solution. You didn't mention what version of the Mac OS you're running, but Bootcamp is one alternative if you have (or can purchase) a Windows license. Be advised, Bootcamp 4, which is available with OS 10.7 (Lion) and OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion), officially supports Windows 7 only. Quicken running under Bootcamp isn't perfect, but it's better than any Mac version, and Quicken 2013 has a mobile app that allows you to view your data & enter transactions via your mobile. The Mac Version of Quicken has been panned by users. I do use Windows for work-related stuff, so I have a reason for running Windows besides using Quicken. I've read that Intuit has a market share of more than 70% in the personal finance software sector, and at this point it seems pretty clear that they are not interested in pursuing a larger share via Mac users. So if we ever see a highly functional version of Quicken for the Mac OS, it won't be any time soon. I've not used other products, but there are many reviews out there which rank them, and some consistently come to the front. Top 10 Reviews Mac Personal Finance Software 2013; WeRockYourWeb Personal Finance Software Rankings includes many Web-based alternatives; Personally, I'm not real enthusiastic about posting my personal financial data on someone's Web site. I have nothing to hide, but I just can't get comfortable with cloud-based personal finance software providers that are combing through my data, Google-like, to generate revenue. Too, it seems an unnecessary risk giving a third party a list of all my account numbers, user names, and passwords. I know that information is out there, if one has the right sort of access, but to my way of thinking, using a cloud-based personal finance software application makes it more out there."},{"docid":"276960","title":"","text":"I'll just add this: In the best hedge funds and proprietary trading funds, stock selection is approached very scientifically in order to minimize losses/maximize gains. Researchers think of a trading idea and carefully test it to see which methods of stock selection work and how well, and finally they combine them. Every day researchers update their models based on the past performance of each indicator. All this is just too much work to be done manually. Firms use machine learning methods to understand markets. They try to figure out what is normal, what did not happen correctly at a specific time, what will happen in future. For instance, they use deep learning networks to look at unlabeled data, and figure out what is normal and what is not. These networks can analyze an unstructured haystack of noise, and separate out the signal. This is very relevant to finance and markets because finding the patterns and anomalies in market data has been the bread and butter of traders for decades. Deep learning networks give us applications like feature learning. By 'features,' I'm referring to certain attributes in data that indicate an event. By anticipating them, we can help predict future price movements. New technology is allowing us to break new ground in managing risk, to be a-typical and manage risk in ever-improving ways. It's the responsibility of every trader, whether working for themselves or others, to take advantage of this technology to improve the collective investing experience. I care very deeply about this. I have many close friends, in the finance world and without, who have lost large amounts of money to poor trade tools and lack of transparency."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"387767\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"401661\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Definitely makes sense, though it's nothing I know about. My approach would be: research online (Google, find interviews, look at LinkedIn, Vault guides, WSO forums) how people get those jobs & what exactly they entail. Then see (LinkedIn history, etc) how they got there, and find a pattern. Then talk to some (alums of your college, family friends, friends of friends, etc). Then you'll have a much better idea of what you need to do and how to do it.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"153353\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I work in finance and I think the biggest mistake you are making at 15 years old is saying that you specifically want to be a financial advisor. I'm not trying to say the job is awful...but most people who are interested in finance would not at all want this job. You will spend 90% of your time trying to find clients. Most of the time it will be through cold-calling people on the phone through some leads you either get through your agency or you paid for online. Or, you have to start annoying friends and family (never do this). For most people, the job is not about finance and it sucks. Once you finally get a client, now you have a conflict of interest in that you want to sell them the high-commission products so that you get paid, but its often not the best product for them. Its actually very easy to become a financial planner, extremely hard to become a successful one. Instead, what I would do, is consider the wider field of finance. There is so much more to finance than being a financial planner. Do you want to become an expert on stocks? Consider equity research. Do you want to help companies fix strategic problems and make a ton of money? Consider consulting. Do you want to help companies raise money by going public? Consider investment banking. You can google the different types of careers online.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"524789\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"376396\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"564007\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com 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 & CAREERS LIFE & ARTS Portfolio My Account HOME WORLD UK COMPANIES MARKETS OPINION WORK & CAREERS LIFE & 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&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 & 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 & Privacy Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Copyright Slavery Statement Services FT Live Share News Tips Securely Individual Subscriptions Group Subscriptions Republishing Contracts & 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 & Careers Show more Work & Careers links Life & Arts Show more Life & 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\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"553377\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"546379\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"215540\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \\\"\\\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\\\"\\\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \\\"\\\"badges\\\"\\\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"546841\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Legit after 5 minutes of googling...and using the search bar in reddit for these jobs... Actually, since you edited your response, here's why I found it kinda naive. You have a pretty good gig as a petroleum engineer in a F500 company. The only thing in your description that you're interested in a job is a corporate job. Which is for the most part all professional jobs. Its ok to be curious, but saying \\\"\\\"I don't like engineering but I like corporate jobs so tell me about corporate sounding jobs even though google has tons of articles on it\\\"\\\" sounds entitled and naive. Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company. Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand. I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"556283\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important. The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time. The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly unpredictable returns. There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much. This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with. Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations. To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"281419\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"239484\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"397915\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"For finance, you need to have a strong handle on how to use Excel. I don't mean \\\"\\\"I can write some formulas and make a complicated worksheet\\\"\\\", I mean \\\"\\\"I know the VBA language and can utilize macros and specific coding to streamline processes and eliminate some tasks\\\"\\\". Having VBA on your resume is a definite plus, especially in addition to the CFA L1/L2 candidacy. [Here's a great resource for learning VBA](http://www.excel-vba-easy.com/). In addition to VBA, the ability to use R (the stats program) can also be incredibly helpful. That's a whole new beast than Excel, and has amazing capabilities that are almost perfect for finance. [Here's a resource](http://www.statmethods.net/) for learning the programming, but it requires a strong understanding of statistical methods and maybe another stats program like SPSS. If you Google \\\"\\\"learn R quickly\\\"\\\" or something like that, you can come up with something. It sounds like you're a Seattlite (Amazon, Boeing, Russell), and so am I. If you'd like help networking, feel free to PM me. I'm a recent college grad, and over the past few years, I've built a pretty solid network in the investments community here. I can at least connect you to people that might be able to help out. If nothing else, I can at least give a ton more resources to learn from. Edit: Also, Russell often uses LinkedIn to find new hires to interview. If you have a lot of groups and stuff in common with the HR team, you pop up higher in their searches. Look up their HR team, and find out what groups they're in, what companies they follow, etc. Also, do you know if you want to go into corp. finance or investments? Two very different games.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"173088\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"138283\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \\\"\\\"saving\\\"\\\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"465971\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"171189\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"7981\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Hey, I hear ya on this situation. I also graduated from a good school (Finance/Comp Sci) with a mediocre GPA and had difficulty securing a full time position in finance. My best advice is to network the shit out of alumni you can connect to through LinkedIn or your schools alumni network homepage. People are MUCH more open to talking than you would typically think. Like your friends said, getting into IBD as an analyst is ideal as it gives you a great line on your resume, shows you worked hard, and has amazing training. Now comes the really shitty part of this conversation, if you've already graduated college, it's next to impossible to get into a bulge bracket as an analyst. Your best bet in this case would be to try to get into a mid-cap or boutique IB and work your way from there. Again though, networking means 100x more than anything else. Now the good news, investment research is very different from investment banking. Yes, equity research is within an investment bank (sell-side and buy-side), but it is very different from investment banking (see Chinese Walls). It's easier to make the transition into research without formal recruiting than it is to get into IB directly. Couple things to keep in mind, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELL-SIDE AN BUY-SIDE. I'm not talking about just one buys stuff the other tries to get you to buy it. I'm talking about conflicts of interest on the sell-side, personalities, types of research, what your role entails, org structure, etc. SELL-SIDE IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN BUY-SIDE!! Buy-side is MUCH less flexible than sell-side in recruiting, also. Do you currently own stocks, trade, track stocks all day long, etc.? If the answer is no to any of those, buy-side is really really hard. They want people who live and breath investing, markets, news, companies, because that's what they do. Also, training is effectively non-existent on the buy-side due to the size of the shops (some can have $10b with 10 people including admins). Now lets talk sell-side. This is where I'd recommend you put your resources if you're really passionate about it. They tend to hire people without experience more often into entry-level jobs (b/c most are larger investment banks that use research to promote underwriting/investment business). Also, you need to have a pitch, but not as extensive as on the buy-side (those 1-2 pagers I talked about). The best advice I can offer is to hop on a Bloomberg/TR/CapIQ terminal if you can and just start finding email addresses of sell-side analysts (they publish them in their reports), and start writing the analysts directly expressing your interest in the business and your desire to talk with them. Be frank about where you are in your career, but show a true passion for research, and that you are \\\"\\\"hungry.\\\"\\\" Attach your resume and keep the email short, a few sentences with maybe some bullets about how you could help that company. Spend the time to personalize it to that person. Follow up with a phone call in 1-2 weeks. They will appreciate the candidness and you'll find them to be very receptive. Even if these analysts don't have a job available right there, if they like you, they will pass you on to someone who might. This is how networking works, that guy might not have a job, but someone is always hiring, and its a tight knit community. The other option is to work for any finance firm in some role for 3-5 years then go back to get an MBA. With an MBA from a top school you can basically transition into anything. PM me if you ever want to talk over IM. I'd be happy to chat.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"171135\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \\\"\\\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\\\"\\\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"319568\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \\\"\\\"true\\\"\\\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"53993\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"207813\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\\\"\\\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\\\"\\\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\\\"\\\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\\\"\\\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\\\"\\\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have bank accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \\\"\\\"checking and savings\\\"\\\" was 75.8% while those with \\\"\\\"checking only\\\"\\\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \\\"\\\"emergency savings\\\"\\\": > *\\\"\\\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\\\"\\\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\\\"\\\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\\\"\\\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \\\"\\\"currency and deposits\\\"\\\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \\\"\\\"securities and other shares\\\"\\\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\\\"\\\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\\\"\\\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"217427\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\\\"\\\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\\\"\\\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\\\"\\\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\\\"\\\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\\\"\\\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \\\"\\\"checking and savings\\\"\\\" was 75.8% while those with \\\"\\\"checking only\\\"\\\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \\\"\\\"emergency savings\\\"\\\": > *\\\"\\\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\\\"\\\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\\\"\\\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\\\"\\\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \\\"\\\"currency and deposits\\\"\\\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \\\"\\\"securities and other shares\\\"\\\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\\\"\\\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\\\"\\\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"10098\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"306189\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"92593\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"79357\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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. )\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"427229\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Long time Quicken user, but I have Bootcamp on my Mac, and one reason is so I can run Quicken Windows. That's one solution. You didn't mention what version of the Mac OS you're running, but Bootcamp is one alternative if you have (or can purchase) a Windows license. Be advised, Bootcamp 4, which is available with OS 10.7 (Lion) and OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion), officially supports Windows 7 only. Quicken running under Bootcamp isn't perfect, but it's better than any Mac version, and Quicken 2013 has a mobile app that allows you to view your data & enter transactions via your mobile. The Mac Version of Quicken has been panned by users. I do use Windows for work-related stuff, so I have a reason for running Windows besides using Quicken. I've read that Intuit has a market share of more than 70% in the personal finance software sector, and at this point it seems pretty clear that they are not interested in pursuing a larger share via Mac users. So if we ever see a highly functional version of Quicken for the Mac OS, it won't be any time soon. I've not used other products, but there are many reviews out there which rank them, and some consistently come to the front. Top 10 Reviews Mac Personal Finance Software 2013; WeRockYourWeb Personal Finance Software Rankings includes many Web-based alternatives; Personally, I'm not real enthusiastic about posting my personal financial data on someone's Web site. I have nothing to hide, but I just can't get comfortable with cloud-based personal finance software providers that are combing through my data, Google-like, to generate revenue. Too, it seems an unnecessary risk giving a third party a list of all my account numbers, user names, and passwords. I know that information is out there, if one has the right sort of access, but to my way of thinking, using a cloud-based personal finance software application makes it more out there.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"276960\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I'll just add this: In the best hedge funds and proprietary trading funds, stock selection is approached very scientifically in order to minimize losses/maximize gains. Researchers think of a trading idea and carefully test it to see which methods of stock selection work and how well, and finally they combine them. Every day researchers update their models based on the past performance of each indicator. All this is just too much work to be done manually. Firms use machine learning methods to understand markets. They try to figure out what is normal, what did not happen correctly at a specific time, what will happen in future. For instance, they use deep learning networks to look at unlabeled data, and figure out what is normal and what is not. These networks can analyze an unstructured haystack of noise, and separate out the signal. This is very relevant to finance and markets because finding the patterns and anomalies in market data has been the bread and butter of traders for decades. Deep learning networks give us applications like feature learning. By 'features,' I'm referring to certain attributes in data that indicate an event. By anticipating them, we can help predict future price movements. New technology is allowing us to break new ground in managing risk, to be a-typical and manage risk in ever-improving ways. It's the responsibility of every trader, whether working for themselves or others, to take advantage of this technology to improve the collective investing experience. I care very deeply about this. I have many close friends, in the finance world and without, who have lost large amounts of money to poor trade tools and lack of transparency.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":94,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"612"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Can we amend last year's Schedule C to indicate reduced income due to a customer refund this year for a product we sold last year?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"362060","title":"","text":"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"362060\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"312493","title":"","text":"When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040."},{"docid":"159880","title":"","text":"\"The refund may offset your liability for the next year, especially if you are a Schedule \"\"C\"\" filer. By having your refund applied to the coming year's taxes you are building a 'protection' against a potentially high liability if you were planning to sell a building that was a commercial building and would have Capital Gains. Or you sold stock at a profit that would also put you in the Capital Gain area. You won a large sum in a lottery, the refund could cushion a bit of the tax. In short, if you think you will have a tax liability in the current year then on the tax return you are filing for the year that just past, it may be to your benefit to apply the refund. If you owe money from a prior year, the refund will not be sent to you so you will not be able to roll it forward. One specific example is you did qualify in the prior year for the ACA. If in the year you are currently in- before you file your taxes-- you realize that you will have to pay at the end of the current year, then assigning your refund will pay part or all of the liability. Keep in mind that the 'tax' imposed due to ACA is only collected from your refunds. If you keep having a liability to pay or have no refunds due to you, the liability is not collected from you.\""},{"docid":"434351","title":"","text":"You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more."},{"docid":"128861","title":"","text":"Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return."},{"docid":"419768","title":"","text":"If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year."},{"docid":"581265","title":"","text":"\"In the US tax system, you cannot \"\"write-off\"\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \"\"write off\"\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \"\"wrote off\"\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \"\"hobby\"\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\""},{"docid":"347946","title":"","text":"\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\""},{"docid":"241751","title":"","text":"This is based on evidence over the past 35 years which coincides with the largest technology revolution in human history. Those automated jobs were going away even if minimum wage was cut. Our business community is enamored of technology solutions that enrich them in the short term and to hell with the law no term. To keep telling the public this then prevents people demanding a livable wage in fear of no job at all. It keeps working class people complacent with the abuses in their work environment, such as forbidding legal breaks, not paying overtime that is due, last minute schedule changes, unpaid 24 on call status and less than 8 hours between shifts. Fear is the most powerful mute button in the world. Long term, profits will begin to slide slowly as we are seeing in retail right now. It will be blamed on Internet shopping, millennials are minimalists or student loan payments. This doesn't explain deceased shopping by other age groups, but shhh, not suppose to notice. As more and more people are left in poverty or near poverty by lack of wage increases, the number of customers fall. When it hits the middle class and they stop shopping so much, our economy will be in a persistent recession. Layoffs to reduce expenses leads to fewer customers for products leads to decreased profits leads to layoffs.... Automation will, of course, reduce the expenses in the short term, but will also eliminate the market. All the white collar workers that think they are immune will be shocked when it hits their industry, but it only makes sense in myopic business circles to eliminate higher wages workers, too. Sometimes technology is the problem, not the solution. I expect to be banned for saying so."},{"docid":"279606","title":"","text":"Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable."},{"docid":"433166","title":"","text":"I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income."},{"docid":"235825","title":"","text":"You have multiple things going on some of which will work in opposite directions. This is a second job for the family so that their income will be added onto of the main income. This generally means that the 2nd income has too little tax withheld. The tax tables used by employers have no way of handling this situation. This 2nd job is being started part way though the tax year, so too much in taxes is withheld. If they make 2,000 a month for 4 months that would mean 8,000 in income; but the tax tables used by the employer withhold at the $24,000 per year rate. The third issue is the great variation in the number of hours per pay period. This means that too much is withheld in checks with the most hours, and too little in the ones with the least hours. For this year you have a reprieve. As long as you make the safe-harbor levels for federal withholding, you can avoid penalties when you file next spring. To do so just make sure that the withholding of all the jobs in the family equal or exceed the total income tax for the family last year. Note this isn't equal to last years withholding, or equal to the refund last year, but the total tax you should have paid. The general advice is to set the smaller income to have 0 exemptions, and use the W-4 for the larger income to make adjustments. In the past I have done this to make sure that we make the safe-harbor level. You can make adjustments in the new year once you know what the safe harbor goal is for the rest of the year."},{"docid":"577475","title":"","text":"In short, I suggest you take a look at your W-4 form and adjust it properly. And yes you can claim your self as a dependent, unless someone else is claiming you. But here is a more detailed explanation of how it works. How Income Tax Works. While most people tend to only think about the tax system and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the month of April approaches, it's actually a never-ending process. For our purposes, a good way to explain how the system works is to give an example of one American income earner, we will call him Joe. The tax process begins when Joe starts his new job. He and his employer agree on his compensation, which will be figured into his gross income at the end of the year. One of the first things he has to do when he's hired is fill out all of his tax forms, including a W-4 form. The W-4 form lists all of Joe's withholding allowance information, such as his number of dependents and child care expenses. The information on this form tells your employer just how much money it needs to withhold from your paycheck for federal income tax. The IRS says that you should check this form each year, as your tax situation may change from year to year. Once Joe is hired and given a salary, he can estimate how much he will pay in taxes for the year. Here's the formula: At the end of each pay period, Joe's company takes the withheld money, along with all of withheld tax money from all of its employees, and deposits the money in a Federal Reserve Bank. This is how the government maintains a steady stream of income while also drawing interest on your tax dollars. Toward the end of the tax year, Joe's company has to send him a W-2 form in the mail. This happens by January 31. This form details how much money Joe made during the last year and how much federal tax was withheld from his income. This information can also be found on Joe's last paycheck of the year, but he'll need to send the W-2 to the IRS for processing purposes. At some point between the time Joe receives his W-2 and April 15, Joe will have to fill out and return his taxes to one of the IRS service and processing centers. Once the IRS receives Joe's tax returns, an IRS employee keys in every piece of information on Joe's tax forms. This information is then stored in large magnetic tape machines. If Joe is due a tax refund, he is sent a check in the mail in the next few weeks. If Joe uses e-File or TeleFile, his refund can be direct-deposited into his bank account."},{"docid":"420529","title":"","text":"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical."},{"docid":"176427","title":"","text":"\">Provide better quality of life for its citizens. That's the whole point of the economy. Right now it's not doing that, it's broken. That's why we need to fix it. That checks out. >For 100-500 years, you're probably right. But I'm not talking about the last 100 years, I'm talking about the last 30-40 or so. Every statistic I've seen indicates that the middle class and poor's purchasing power has stagnated severely while the rich have continued to rise, and it's put enormous economic strain on the middle and lower classes. Average hours per worker has increased versus 30-40 years ago. That and better technology means we are more productive than ever. Production is great. Maybe it's too great? If you slowed production, maybe you could prevent wealth from collecting in a few hands so quickly? Wouldn't that be a \"\"weaker economy\"\" rather than a \"\"stronger economy\"\"? How exactly would you implement that, short of a rebellion? Here's the crux of your problem. America got incredibly wealthy from WW2. This is why 30-40 years ago, there was a rich middle class that was stronger than it is today. This was not \"\"the economy's\"\" success. This was luck (or strategy, depending upon how much government planned it out).\""},{"docid":"512151","title":"","text":"Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two."},{"docid":"214358","title":"","text":"Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29."},{"docid":"16353","title":"","text":"Target, the 2nd largest discount chain announced that it will stop offering Amazon's e-reader Kindle because of a «conflict of interest» while Barnes & Noble and Apple devices will continue to be offered. According to Molly Snyder, Target spokesperson, the decision to drop Kindle e-readers starting this spring came after a review of the retailer's merchandise, which consisted of evaluations on prices and quality of their products. However, Norton Medical and Scientific Research & Biotechnology got a hold of an internal memo regarding the removal of Amazon hardware (Kindle) from Target stores starting this month and while some accessories are to remain in stock, shipments of the tablet will stop beginning on May 13. Before the Minneapolis-based retailer started offering Kindles in June 2010, Amazon only sold the tablet on its own website. But after recognizing the need of customers to see the products in person before buying, Amazon approached Target for some sort of partnership, followed by WalMart, Best Buy and Staples. Even though most of the Kindle items are being sold at Amazon, Target's 1,800 stores nationwide have made it one of the biggest Kindle retailers in the physical world. In fact, Target has announced after last year's Thanksgiving that the Kindle was the bestselling tablet in its stores. Target's move is perhaps due to the fact that Apple products are being promoted prominently in the store. But Snyder declined to say more but «We will continue to offer our guests a full assortment of e-readers and supporting accessories» regarding the apparent partnership with Apple. According to a statement from the retailer, the «very tight alignment» of Kindle with the online store Amazon, their direct competitor, explains the conflicting interest presented as the reason. Target's decision to drop Kindle might also be a boycott to manufacturers' using their brick and mortar stores to as a showroom of products. This often happens as customers go to retailers like Target in order to personally check out an item and then buy the item online for a cheaper price. In fact, Target has already appealed to vendors for aid in developing exclusive products and rivaling prices online. «What we aren't willing to do is let online-only retailers use our brick-and-mortar stores as a showroom for their products and undercut our prices,» said a Target in a statement. The absence of Kindle from Target stores is not likely to stop Amazon customers from visiting Target for other products but Norton Medical and Scientific Research & Biotechnology said the move will definitely send a message to Amazon."},{"docid":"221281","title":"","text":"I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk). I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great."},{"docid":"133235","title":"","text":"\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\""},{"docid":"179986","title":"","text":"may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator."},{"docid":"387854","title":"","text":">How do we know that's the reason? There's also more used cars in the wild now, and cars tend to last a lot longer than they used to. Average age of cars on the road also went from 3-5 years to 8-12 years now. People don't own cars longer because they last longer, they own cars longer because they are not as easily able to afford another. THAT is the main issue. GDP has gone up (although this statement is suspicious when you factor in inflation), but median income has actually gone down adjusted for the 1960s/1970s projected rates. People with more disposable income buy more cars, when there is more $$$ available to the average person they are not frugal and fix up their old car, they go out and buy a new one. So what we have seen are not only fewer cars being sold every years since 1969 but also that people are forced to own cars longer to save $$."},{"docid":"582265","title":"","text":"\"We need a new kind of economy that is actually economic, that \"\"saves\"\", rather than the one we have now that is largely based on waste. We need more jobs and higher wages so that everyone can work a little less hours and have the time to go back to doing a few things for themselves like gardening, or even walking their own dog instead of paying someone to do it. We need to include the \"\"cradle to grave\"\" costs of products into the price so that someone can get paid to take it apart and actually recycle it instead of land filling it. And, we need to build products better, in the first place so that each item lasts longer before needing to be recycled. The last 2-3 decades, we have been so focused on getting a lot of stuff as cheap as possible. We need to reverse that and buy less individual items of a higher quality so that they last a while. I am willing to spend more to buy a TV that will last 30 years like my parents TV did. Today's flat screens seem to be doomed at 2 years. We also need to focus on rebuilding and repairing what we were given by our parents and grandparents--the nations roads, bridges, pipelines, water systems, and landmark building--all of these things need to be repaired before they are beyond hope. Unfortunately, none of these things are going to happen.\""},{"docid":"205232","title":"","text":"Ironically, anyone can say anything, but it doesn't make it true. In normal times, the IRS can audit you for 3 years, or up to 6 for certain cases of fraud - From the IRS site - How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually don’t go back more than the last six years. HSA spending is reported each year, just like any Schedule A deductions. Each year, I have my charitable receipts, and they are not sent in. They are there in case of audit. I don't need to save them forever, nor does one need their medical bills forever. 3 years. 6 if you wish to be paranoid. The EOBs should be enough. The HSA is unique in that you deposit pretax dollars (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)) yet withdrawals for qualified expenses come out tax free (like a Roth). In my opinion, as long as your medical plan qualifies you for an HSA, I'd maximize its use. The older you get, the more bills you'll have, and at some point, you'll be grateful to your younger self that you did this."},{"docid":"89714","title":"","text":"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! .."},{"docid":"397104","title":"","text":"(xposted comment from a discussion in /r/economics) I work for (and am a cooperative owner of) [Equal Exchange](http://www.equalexchange.coop). We are a food and beverage company. We have a pretty conventional management structure and division of labor. We all get regular paychecks (and awesome benefits). The company did over $55 million in sales last year and has been profitable for 23 of the last 24 years (don't ask us about 1997. We lost $7,000). What's different? Well, last year, every single worker/owner got the same share of the profits: about $6,500. Didn't matter what your job was. Also, the board its entirely elected by the workers: one worker, one vote. Only the workers can nominate and vote for the board. Six if the nine members of the board are workers. They can fire the CEO (and we did once). The workers as a whole have to approve major (really major) decisions, and also any changes to the company bylaws. It's a crazy company that most textbooks would say is impossible, yet here we are. [Here](http://equalexchange.coop/about/annual-reports) are our annual reports. In 2013 we had $56 million in sales and $2.65 million in pre-tax profits. We buy almost all our products from small-farmer co-operatives, and we sell our products to virtually every consumer grocery co-operative in the US (among many other places). Edit: fixed typos"},{"docid":"46737","title":"","text":"\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\""},{"docid":"481537","title":"","text":"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details."},{"docid":"254151","title":"","text":"\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\""},{"docid":"396066","title":"","text":"Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored."},{"docid":"525149","title":"","text":"I'm assuming you are in the US here. From a tax perspective you don't need to take any action to start a business and deduct expenses. If you have earned income coming from a source other than a W2 paying job, then you have a business. On your taxes, this means you file a schedule C (which is where you will deduct business expenses) and schedule SE (which computes how much FICA tax you will owe on your business income). When we talk about starting a business, we usually are talking about creating a corporation or LLC. No particular tax advantage to that in your case, but there could be liability advantages, if you are concerned about that. If you file losses consistently year after year, the IRS might try and classify your business as a hobby. That's what you should worry about. I suppose incorporating might reduce the probability of that, but it might not. Keep good records in case you need to argue with the IRS. If you do have to argue with them, they will want to ensure that you only used the laptop and internet for your business. That's a big if, but it's a potentially scary one. IRS Guidelines on hobby vs. business income Note: besides deducting expenses, another advantage of self-employment is opening a solo-401(k) or SEP or SIMPLE IRA. These potentially allow you to set aside a lot more money than the typical IRA and 401(k) arrangement. Thing is, you have to have a lot more earned income to really take advantage of them, but let's hope your app gets you there."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"312493\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"159880\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The refund may offset your liability for the next year, especially if you are a Schedule \\\"\\\"C\\\"\\\" filer. By having your refund applied to the coming year's taxes you are building a 'protection' against a potentially high liability if you were planning to sell a building that was a commercial building and would have Capital Gains. Or you sold stock at a profit that would also put you in the Capital Gain area. You won a large sum in a lottery, the refund could cushion a bit of the tax. In short, if you think you will have a tax liability in the current year then on the tax return you are filing for the year that just past, it may be to your benefit to apply the refund. If you owe money from a prior year, the refund will not be sent to you so you will not be able to roll it forward. One specific example is you did qualify in the prior year for the ACA. If in the year you are currently in- before you file your taxes-- you realize that you will have to pay at the end of the current year, then assigning your refund will pay part or all of the liability. Keep in mind that the 'tax' imposed due to ACA is only collected from your refunds. If you keep having a liability to pay or have no refunds due to you, the liability is not collected from you.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"434351\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"128861\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"419768\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"581265\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"In the US tax system, you cannot \\\"\\\"write-off\\\"\\\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \\\"\\\"write off\\\"\\\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \\\"\\\"wrote off\\\"\\\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \\\"\\\"hobby\\\"\\\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"347946\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \\\"\\\"Other Comprehensive Income\\\"\\\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"241751\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"This is based on evidence over the past 35 years which coincides with the largest technology revolution in human history. Those automated jobs were going away even if minimum wage was cut. Our business community is enamored of technology solutions that enrich them in the short term and to hell with the law no term. To keep telling the public this then prevents people demanding a livable wage in fear of no job at all. It keeps working class people complacent with the abuses in their work environment, such as forbidding legal breaks, not paying overtime that is due, last minute schedule changes, unpaid 24 on call status and less than 8 hours between shifts. Fear is the most powerful mute button in the world. Long term, profits will begin to slide slowly as we are seeing in retail right now. It will be blamed on Internet shopping, millennials are minimalists or student loan payments. This doesn't explain deceased shopping by other age groups, but shhh, not suppose to notice. As more and more people are left in poverty or near poverty by lack of wage increases, the number of customers fall. When it hits the middle class and they stop shopping so much, our economy will be in a persistent recession. Layoffs to reduce expenses leads to fewer customers for products leads to decreased profits leads to layoffs.... Automation will, of course, reduce the expenses in the short term, but will also eliminate the market. All the white collar workers that think they are immune will be shocked when it hits their industry, but it only makes sense in myopic business circles to eliminate higher wages workers, too. Sometimes technology is the problem, not the solution. I expect to be banned for saying so.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"279606\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"433166\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I recommend you ask this question to a qualified mortgage broker. We just closed on our first house. My wife & I have had several years of stable jobs, good credit scores, and a small side business with 1040 Schedule-C income... and we were surprised by the overwhelming amount of documentation we needed for the loan. For example, we had 3 checks deposited to our bank account for $37.95. We had to provide copies of the checks, deposit slip and a letter explaining the deposit. One reason we might have had so much trouble: the mortgage broker we selected sold our loan to a very picky lender. On the plus side, we obtained a competitive rate with extremely low closing costs on a 30 year fixed mortgage. However, I can't imagine the headaches we would've incurred if one of us were changing jobs to 1099 income.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"235825\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You have multiple things going on some of which will work in opposite directions. This is a second job for the family so that their income will be added onto of the main income. This generally means that the 2nd income has too little tax withheld. The tax tables used by employers have no way of handling this situation. This 2nd job is being started part way though the tax year, so too much in taxes is withheld. If they make 2,000 a month for 4 months that would mean 8,000 in income; but the tax tables used by the employer withhold at the $24,000 per year rate. The third issue is the great variation in the number of hours per pay period. This means that too much is withheld in checks with the most hours, and too little in the ones with the least hours. For this year you have a reprieve. As long as you make the safe-harbor levels for federal withholding, you can avoid penalties when you file next spring. To do so just make sure that the withholding of all the jobs in the family equal or exceed the total income tax for the family last year. Note this isn't equal to last years withholding, or equal to the refund last year, but the total tax you should have paid. The general advice is to set the smaller income to have 0 exemptions, and use the W-4 for the larger income to make adjustments. In the past I have done this to make sure that we make the safe-harbor level. You can make adjustments in the new year once you know what the safe harbor goal is for the rest of the year.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"577475\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In short, I suggest you take a look at your W-4 form and adjust it properly. And yes you can claim your self as a dependent, unless someone else is claiming you. But here is a more detailed explanation of how it works. How Income Tax Works. While most people tend to only think about the tax system and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the month of April approaches, it's actually a never-ending process. For our purposes, a good way to explain how the system works is to give an example of one American income earner, we will call him Joe. The tax process begins when Joe starts his new job. He and his employer agree on his compensation, which will be figured into his gross income at the end of the year. One of the first things he has to do when he's hired is fill out all of his tax forms, including a W-4 form. The W-4 form lists all of Joe's withholding allowance information, such as his number of dependents and child care expenses. The information on this form tells your employer just how much money it needs to withhold from your paycheck for federal income tax. The IRS says that you should check this form each year, as your tax situation may change from year to year. Once Joe is hired and given a salary, he can estimate how much he will pay in taxes for the year. Here's the formula: At the end of each pay period, Joe's company takes the withheld money, along with all of withheld tax money from all of its employees, and deposits the money in a Federal Reserve Bank. This is how the government maintains a steady stream of income while also drawing interest on your tax dollars. Toward the end of the tax year, Joe's company has to send him a W-2 form in the mail. This happens by January 31. This form details how much money Joe made during the last year and how much federal tax was withheld from his income. This information can also be found on Joe's last paycheck of the year, but he'll need to send the W-2 to the IRS for processing purposes. At some point between the time Joe receives his W-2 and April 15, Joe will have to fill out and return his taxes to one of the IRS service and processing centers. Once the IRS receives Joe's tax returns, an IRS employee keys in every piece of information on Joe's tax forms. This information is then stored in large magnetic tape machines. If Joe is due a tax refund, he is sent a check in the mail in the next few weeks. If Joe uses e-File or TeleFile, his refund can be direct-deposited into his bank account.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"420529\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"176427\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\">Provide better quality of life for its citizens. That's the whole point of the economy. Right now it's not doing that, it's broken. That's why we need to fix it. That checks out. >For 100-500 years, you're probably right. But I'm not talking about the last 100 years, I'm talking about the last 30-40 or so. Every statistic I've seen indicates that the middle class and poor's purchasing power has stagnated severely while the rich have continued to rise, and it's put enormous economic strain on the middle and lower classes. Average hours per worker has increased versus 30-40 years ago. That and better technology means we are more productive than ever. Production is great. Maybe it's too great? If you slowed production, maybe you could prevent wealth from collecting in a few hands so quickly? Wouldn't that be a \\\"\\\"weaker economy\\\"\\\" rather than a \\\"\\\"stronger economy\\\"\\\"? How exactly would you implement that, short of a rebellion? Here's the crux of your problem. America got incredibly wealthy from WW2. This is why 30-40 years ago, there was a rich middle class that was stronger than it is today. This was not \\\"\\\"the economy's\\\"\\\" success. This was luck (or strategy, depending upon how much government planned it out).\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"512151\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"214358\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"16353\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Target, the 2nd largest discount chain announced that it will stop offering Amazon's e-reader Kindle because of a «conflict of interest» while Barnes & Noble and Apple devices will continue to be offered. According to Molly Snyder, Target spokesperson, the decision to drop Kindle e-readers starting this spring came after a review of the retailer's merchandise, which consisted of evaluations on prices and quality of their products. However, Norton Medical and Scientific Research & Biotechnology got a hold of an internal memo regarding the removal of Amazon hardware (Kindle) from Target stores starting this month and while some accessories are to remain in stock, shipments of the tablet will stop beginning on May 13. Before the Minneapolis-based retailer started offering Kindles in June 2010, Amazon only sold the tablet on its own website. But after recognizing the need of customers to see the products in person before buying, Amazon approached Target for some sort of partnership, followed by WalMart, Best Buy and Staples. Even though most of the Kindle items are being sold at Amazon, Target's 1,800 stores nationwide have made it one of the biggest Kindle retailers in the physical world. In fact, Target has announced after last year's Thanksgiving that the Kindle was the bestselling tablet in its stores. Target's move is perhaps due to the fact that Apple products are being promoted prominently in the store. But Snyder declined to say more but «We will continue to offer our guests a full assortment of e-readers and supporting accessories» regarding the apparent partnership with Apple. According to a statement from the retailer, the «very tight alignment» of Kindle with the online store Amazon, their direct competitor, explains the conflicting interest presented as the reason. Target's decision to drop Kindle might also be a boycott to manufacturers' using their brick and mortar stores to as a showroom of products. This often happens as customers go to retailers like Target in order to personally check out an item and then buy the item online for a cheaper price. In fact, Target has already appealed to vendors for aid in developing exclusive products and rivaling prices online. «What we aren't willing to do is let online-only retailers use our brick-and-mortar stores as a showroom for their products and undercut our prices,» said a Target in a statement. The absence of Kindle from Target stores is not likely to stop Amazon customers from visiting Target for other products but Norton Medical and Scientific Research & Biotechnology said the move will definitely send a message to Amazon.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"221281\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk). I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"133235\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \\\"\\\"Married filing jointly\\\"\\\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \\\"\\\"Family partnership\\\"\\\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"179986\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"387854\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \">How do we know that's the reason? There's also more used cars in the wild now, and cars tend to last a lot longer than they used to. Average age of cars on the road also went from 3-5 years to 8-12 years now. People don't own cars longer because they last longer, they own cars longer because they are not as easily able to afford another. THAT is the main issue. GDP has gone up (although this statement is suspicious when you factor in inflation), but median income has actually gone down adjusted for the 1960s/1970s projected rates. People with more disposable income buy more cars, when there is more $$$ available to the average person they are not frugal and fix up their old car, they go out and buy a new one. So what we have seen are not only fewer cars being sold every years since 1969 but also that people are forced to own cars longer to save $$.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"582265\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"We need a new kind of economy that is actually economic, that \\\"\\\"saves\\\"\\\", rather than the one we have now that is largely based on waste. We need more jobs and higher wages so that everyone can work a little less hours and have the time to go back to doing a few things for themselves like gardening, or even walking their own dog instead of paying someone to do it. We need to include the \\\"\\\"cradle to grave\\\"\\\" costs of products into the price so that someone can get paid to take it apart and actually recycle it instead of land filling it. And, we need to build products better, in the first place so that each item lasts longer before needing to be recycled. The last 2-3 decades, we have been so focused on getting a lot of stuff as cheap as possible. We need to reverse that and buy less individual items of a higher quality so that they last a while. I am willing to spend more to buy a TV that will last 30 years like my parents TV did. Today's flat screens seem to be doomed at 2 years. We also need to focus on rebuilding and repairing what we were given by our parents and grandparents--the nations roads, bridges, pipelines, water systems, and landmark building--all of these things need to be repaired before they are beyond hope. Unfortunately, none of these things are going to happen.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"205232\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Ironically, anyone can say anything, but it doesn't make it true. In normal times, the IRS can audit you for 3 years, or up to 6 for certain cases of fraud - From the IRS site - How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually don’t go back more than the last six years. HSA spending is reported each year, just like any Schedule A deductions. Each year, I have my charitable receipts, and they are not sent in. They are there in case of audit. I don't need to save them forever, nor does one need their medical bills forever. 3 years. 6 if you wish to be paranoid. The EOBs should be enough. The HSA is unique in that you deposit pretax dollars (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)) yet withdrawals for qualified expenses come out tax free (like a Roth). In my opinion, as long as your medical plan qualifies you for an HSA, I'd maximize its use. The older you get, the more bills you'll have, and at some point, you'll be grateful to your younger self that you did this.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"89714\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! ..\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"397104\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"(xposted comment from a discussion in /r/economics) I work for (and am a cooperative owner of) [Equal Exchange](http://www.equalexchange.coop). We are a food and beverage company. We have a pretty conventional management structure and division of labor. We all get regular paychecks (and awesome benefits). The company did over $55 million in sales last year and has been profitable for 23 of the last 24 years (don't ask us about 1997. We lost $7,000). What's different? Well, last year, every single worker/owner got the same share of the profits: about $6,500. Didn't matter what your job was. Also, the board its entirely elected by the workers: one worker, one vote. Only the workers can nominate and vote for the board. Six if the nine members of the board are workers. They can fire the CEO (and we did once). The workers as a whole have to approve major (really major) decisions, and also any changes to the company bylaws. It's a crazy company that most textbooks would say is impossible, yet here we are. [Here](http://equalexchange.coop/about/annual-reports) are our annual reports. In 2013 we had $56 million in sales and $2.65 million in pre-tax profits. We buy almost all our products from small-farmer co-operatives, and we sell our products to virtually every consumer grocery co-operative in the US (among many other places). Edit: fixed typos\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"46737\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \\\"\\\"deluxe\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"premier\\\"\\\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"481537\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"254151\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \\\"\\\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\\\"\\\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \\\"\\\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\\\"\\\"\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"396066\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"525149\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I'm assuming you are in the US here. From a tax perspective you don't need to take any action to start a business and deduct expenses. If you have earned income coming from a source other than a W2 paying job, then you have a business. On your taxes, this means you file a schedule C (which is where you will deduct business expenses) and schedule SE (which computes how much FICA tax you will owe on your business income). When we talk about starting a business, we usually are talking about creating a corporation or LLC. No particular tax advantage to that in your case, but there could be liability advantages, if you are concerned about that. If you file losses consistently year after year, the IRS might try and classify your business as a hobby. That's what you should worry about. I suppose incorporating might reduce the probability of that, but it might not. Keep good records in case you need to argue with the IRS. If you do have to argue with them, they will want to ensure that you only used the laptop and internet for your business. That's a big if, but it's a potentially scary one. IRS Guidelines on hobby vs. business income Note: besides deducting expenses, another advantage of self-employment is opening a solo-401(k) or SEP or SIMPLE IRA. These potentially allow you to set aside a lot more money than the typical IRA and 401(k) arrangement. Thing is, you have to have a lot more earned income to really take advantage of them, but let's hope your app gets you there.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":95,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9301"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"TDAmeritrade Quote Summary TREE vs APRN"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"519885","title":"","text":"I suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period. So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires which is usually about 90 days."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"519885\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period. So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires which is usually about 90 days.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"416390","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/02/carbon-capture-plant-bad-investment/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Although we can&#039;t compare the costs because Climeworks doesn&#039;t state the cost of their plant on their website-probably because it&#039;s egregiously high, we do know the cost of planting trees. > That means that only $17,640 worth of trees could do the work of the multi-million dollar Hinwil carbon-capture plant. > According to Spencer P Morrison, this paper&#039;s editor-in-chief, the Hinwil carbon plant may be &quot;The worst investment in human history&quot;, and is &quot;Symptomatic of a complete disregard for common sense, and utter contempt for the working man&quot;. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fje5k/worlds_first_multimillion_dollar_carboncapture/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~137400 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*: **plant**^#1 **tree**^#2 **carbon**^#3 **more**^#4 **dioxide**^#5\""},{"docid":"158252","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-trump-picks-idUSKBN18T2VE?il=0) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The conservative picks come as Fed Chair Janet Yellen continues to slowly raise interest rates and lay out plans to shed some of the trillions of dollars of bonds bought in the wake of the financial crisis. > &quot;Many market participants have been barking up the wrong tree, arguing that Trump is an easy money guy because he borrowed a lot when he was a real-estate tycoon,&quot; said Stephen Stanley, Amherst Pierpont&#039;s chief economist, who worked for Goodfriend when he was at the Richmond Fed. > &quot;If these two nominees are eventually confirmed, the tone of the Fed Board will instantly swing to a far more hawkish tenor.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f1uue/trump_makes_two_conservative_picks_for_fed_ny/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135644 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*: **Fed**^#1 **Goodfriend**^#2 **rate**^#3 **hike**^#4 **Trump**^#5\""},{"docid":"533974","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/this-smart-tree-has-the-environmental-benefits-of-a-small-forest/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > So a single &#039;tree&#039; that has the environmental benefits of a small forest has the potential to be a game changer - and that&#039;s exactly what CityTrees are hoping to be. > The trees&#039; inventors estimate that a single structure has the environmental benefits of 275 urban trees, but taking up 99% less space and at just 5% of the cost. > Although each tree costs around $25,000, the cost can be mitigated by the potential for advertising on the trees via logos and screens on the unit. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6t3mka/the_new_smart_tree_a_single_structure_has_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188906 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*: **tree**^#1 **unit**^#2 **CityTree**^#3 **cost**^#4 **City**^#5\""},{"docid":"12373","title":"","text":"\"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience. All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint. This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly. White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades. The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy. Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long! The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer. So if I understand it, your question is now \"\"At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments\"\". This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle. With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell. You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell. There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision. Not saying \"\"Don't do it\"\", but don't rationalize it to yourself as \"\"we're saving money by doing this now.\"\" Maybe use the rationalization \"\"We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out.\"\" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply. Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help.\""},{"docid":"129656","title":"","text":"I would say binomial tree, except your last sentence, > The probabilities of the various outcomes are unknown. causes issues with that. You could do a scenario analysis in which you compare values using different %chances of up vs. down."},{"docid":"64022","title":"","text":"I agree, but if that's *all* a person wants to discuss out of that story thats missing the forest for the trees. Also for the record, the $800 billion in 2007-2008 vs the larger muni bond market isn't actually a lie. You simply had a problem that it referred to more than just the 2007-2008 time frame. That's all. And either way it isn't material to the larger story here which was the fraud. Nobody got 'caught lying'."},{"docid":"235435","title":"","text":"\">I'm not going to engage you in a philosophical debate about corporations vs. people. Corporations are legal structures given a legal status by government to facilitate the cooperation of labor, production and capital. In return for this, corporations are subject to regulations and laws. They are not people. This is something \"\"corporations are people, my friends\"\" needs to learn. >P.S. Not taxing losses is hardly corporate welfare and GE did not get a tax \"\"refund.\"\" So where did they get that money from? Where do you think that $3.4billion came from? Do you think that $3.4billion just magically appeared out of thin air? Do you think GE invented a tree that grows money? That $3.4billion came from taxpayers/US Treasury because GE carried over losses - as such it was refund.\""},{"docid":"502271","title":"","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%"},{"docid":"311951","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/a-new-way-to-learn-economics) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A group of economists from both sides of the Atlantic, part of a project called CORE Econ, has put together a new introductory economics curriculum, one that is modern, comprehensive, and freely available online. > In many countries, groups of students demanded an overhaul in how economics was taught, with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems. > In his highly popular &quot;Principles of Economics,&quot; Harvard&#039;s N. Gregory Mankiw begins by listing a set of ten basic principles, which include &quot;Rational people think at the margin,&quot; &quot;Trade can make everybody better off,&quot; and &quot;Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zkgmk/a_new_way_to_learn_economics/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~208302 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*: **economic**^#1 **students**^#2 **CORE**^#3 **more**^#4 **curriculum**^#5\""},{"docid":"430974","title":"","text":"The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots. The quotes on NYSE are for single shares. That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand. The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock. The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market. A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen. It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered. There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:"},{"docid":"37243","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://eurbaninsight.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/modelling-an-agent-based-general-equilibrium-model-in-python/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The extension from this partial equilibrium in a single market to general equilibrium reflects the idea that it may not be legitimate to speak of equilibrium with respect to a single commodity when supply and demand in that market depend on the prices of other goods. > On this view, a coherent theory of the price system and the coordination of economic activity has to consider the simultaneous general equilibrium of all markets in the economy. > Labor print(&quot;Price:&quot;, price, &quot;Product:&quot; , product, &quot;Labortime:&quot;,labor ) def demand(lili, comps, wage): demand = totalwork = 0 totallabortime = 0 for indiv in lili: for comp in comps: indiv. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70sqwg/how_to_model_an_agent_based_general_equilibrium/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~211887 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*: **Price**^#1 **comp**^#2 **weight**^#3 **def**^#4 **market**^#5\""},{"docid":"64121","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/440dc0bb5b464b1dbd8aa7714f779c48) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Martin Shkreli, the eccentric former pharmaceutical CEO notorious for a price-gouging scandal and for his snide &quot;Pharma Bro&quot; persona on social media, was convicted Friday on federal charges he deceived investors in a pair of failed hedge funds. > &quot;There is an image issue that Martin and I are going to be discussing in the next few days,&quot; he said, adding that while Shkreli was a brilliant mind, sometimes his &quot;People skills&quot; need work. > Shkreli&#039;s lawyer agreed his client could be annoying but said his hedge fund investors knew what they were getting. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6rncn2/pharma_bro_shkreli_is_convicted_at_securities/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~183442 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*: **Shkreli**^#1 **investors**^#2 **million**^#3 **case**^#4 **prosecutor**^#5\""},{"docid":"17274","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/11/universal-basic-income-needed-break-addiction-economic-growth-killing-us) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > As some tech giants throw their weight behind the idea of a universal basic income, one anthropologist says it&#039;s a key component of a strategy to break the &quot;Addiction to economic growth [that] is killing us&quot; and the planet. > The idea of a universal basic income is gaining attention in the U.S. thanks to a recent resolution put forth in Hawaii, and Philip Alston, U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said earlier this summer that a basic income is &quot;a bold and imaginative solution&quot; amidst growing economic insecurity. > Laura Williams of the U.K.-based advocacy group Global Justice Now recently asked, &quot;Has the time for universal basic income come?&quot;. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tlybg/jason_hickel_ubi_needed_to_break_addiction_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~190425 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*: **basic**^#1 **income**^#2 **Hickel**^#3 **economic**^#4 **planet**^#5\""},{"docid":"205723","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.theage.com.au/business/china/chinas-bank-chief-warns-of-a-sharp-correction-20171020-gz4xs1.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > China&#039;s central bank has warned in the clearest language to date that extreme credit creation and trouble in the shadow banking system could lead to a full-blown financial crisis. > Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People&#039;s Bank, spoke of &quot;Fierce market reactions&quot; and possibly a Minsky Moment, the tipping point when credit cycles break and euphoric booms collapse under their own weight. > The problem with the assault on shadow banking is that private companies rely on this form of credit, while the state-owned behemoths or &quot;SOEs&quot; gobble up most of the available loans from the &quot;Big five&quot; state banks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77tfnk/chinas_bank_chief_warns_of_a_sharp_correction/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~232474 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*: **bank**^#1 **China**^#2 **credit**^#3 **financial**^#4 **per**^#5\""},{"docid":"31542","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/a-gary-cohn-resignation-would-crash-the-markets-jeffrey-sonnenfeld.html) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The New York Times reported Wednesday that Cohn, who is Jewish, was &quot;Upset&quot; and &quot;Disgusted&quot; with President Donald Trump&#039;s response to Saturday&#039;s deadly white nationalist rally in Virginia. > During a heated press conference Tuesday, Trump defended his comments that &quot;Both sides&quot; were to blame for the violence over the weekend that left a counterprotester dead. That prompted several members of Trump&#039;s advisory councils to announce their resignations, which caused Trump to eventually dissolve the councils entirely. > A Cohn resignation could be a hit to Trump&#039;s plans to revamp the tax code. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ub6qf/a_gary_cohn_resignation_would_crash_the_markets/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~193173 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*: **Trump**^#1 **Cohn**^#2 **White**^#3 **markets**^#4 **CNBC**^#5\""},{"docid":"324432","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/17298/can-the-stock-market-show-indefinite-exponential-growth) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The economist&#039;s answer to this is &quot;Yes, of course economic growth can continue indefinitely.&quot; And so to answer also your narrower question, &quot;Yes, of course the stock market can show indefinite exponential growth.\"\" > Fallacy #1. &quot;Economic growth is about making ever more&quot;Stuff&quot;, digging ever more gold and other natural resources out of the ground, burning ever more energy, etc. > Energy growth has far outstripped population growth, so that per-capita energy use has surged dramatically over time-our energy lives today are far richer than those of our great-great-grandparents a century ago. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k6nrv/is_indefinite_economic_growth_possible/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~155081 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*: **growth**^#1 **energy**^#2 **ever**^#3 **economic**^#4 **well-being**^#5\""},{"docid":"409786","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trumps-new-nickname-rocket-man-for-kim-jong-un-is-brilliant-commentary.html) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A wave of shock rippled through Twitter and the media after President Trump called North Korean President Kim Jong Un a &quot;Rocket Man&quot; in his speech before the United Nations Tuesday. > Kim Jong Un might be using missiles as his weapon of choice but when President Trump goes into battle, his weapon of choice seems to be ridicule - and a catchy nickname to make it stick. > Here in the U.S., it&#039;s always been very nice that when presidents run for re-election, even their opponents have traditionally referred to them as either &quot;Mr. President,&quot; or used the &quot;President&quot; title before their last names every time. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/719ow5/trumps_new_nickname_rocket_man_for_kim_jong_un_is/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~213432 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*: **President**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **even**^#3 **United**^#4 **Kim**^#5\""},{"docid":"44521","title":"","text":"Try ThinkOrSwim by TDAmeritrade. It allows you to paper trade with a powerful trading platform. There's also a mobile app so you can trade on the go. Good luck!"},{"docid":"458828","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/10/how-world-s-greatest-financial-experiment-enriched-rich) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a little under a decade, central bank &quot;Kitchens&quot; in the US, Europe, the UK and Japan have inundated financial markets with more than $8trn using a system dubbed &quot;Quantitative easing&quot;. > David Blanchflower, an economics professor, sat on the Bank of England&#039;s Monetary Policy Committee that introduced QE. &quot;In 2008, we had to get borrowing rates down to save the economy. But how much money do you create to get interest rates down by a quarter of a percentage point? Is it &pound;50bn or more? We had no idea of the amounts needed. It was a bit &#039;suck it and see&#039;,&quot; he told me. > &quot;The problem,&quot; said Glenn Stevens in his final speech as Australia&#039;s central bank governor, &quot;Is that there is a limit to how much we can expect to achieve by relying on already indebted entities taking on more debt.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/755b2x/how_the_worlds_greatest_financial_experiment/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~224617 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*: **bank**^#1 **bond**^#2 **more**^#3 **Central**^#4 **money**^#5\""},{"docid":"221082","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/tillerson-called-trump-a-moron-says-report.html) reduced by 59%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Secretary of State Rex Tillerson openly referred to President Donald Trump as a &quot;Moron&quot; after a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon, according to NBC News, citing multiple senior administration officials. > &quot;I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...,&quot; Trump said in a tweet. > In its report, NBC said Tillerson&#039;s top State Department spokesman, R.C. Hammond, denied that the secretary had considered quitting this summer and denied that Tillerson called Trump a &quot;Moron.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/748mto/tillerson_reportedly_described_trump_as_a_moron/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~221883 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*: **Tillerson**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **State**^#3 **Secretary**^#4 **officials**^#5\""},{"docid":"15938","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/05/monday-smackdown-physics-professor-phil-price-the-nimbyist.html) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Must-Read I disagree with Noah Smith: reading Phil Price convinced me that Phil Price is an idiot, that for many, many people NIMBYism is not a &quot;Flawed but serious package of ideas&quot; but rather &quot;Simple ignorance&quot;-or, perhaps, rather, very hard work to remain ignorant, in a way that is supportive of the &quot;Selfishness of incumbent homeowners trying to feather their own nests... [and] white people trying to exclude poor minorities from their communities while still appearing liberal...&quot;. > Always remind people that the price of an apartment... doesn&#039;t come built into its walls and floors. > Acknowledge that induced demand is a real thing, and think seriously about how new housing supply within a city changes the location decisions of people not currently living in that city. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejttl/monday_smackdown_physics_professor_phil_price_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133580 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*: **people**^#1 **apartment**^#2 **city**^#3 **think**^#4 **NIMBY**^#5\""},{"docid":"211028","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Seven years ago, California was &quot;The next Greece.&quot; Today, the state&#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &quot;Insatiable,&quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. > An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. > If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~188113 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*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\""},{"docid":"270154","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-policy-development/u-s-is-a-danger-to-the-world-warns-top-economist-idUSKCN1C41XD) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BARCELONA - A global push to end poverty and hunger, and combat climate change by 2030 is at risk from American &quot;Militarism&quot;, powerful business interests and the actions of President Donald Trump, said leading U.S. economist and U.N. special adviser Jeffrey Sachs. > &quot;More and more I see that while the kind of technical solutions I work on are very important ... the real obstacles that we are fighting every day are the political obstacles, the headwinds of powerful interests, bad ways of doing things,&quot; he added. > Sachs, who has helped some 100 countries shape their policies, said he had expected to focus on international development issues &quot;Because the U.S. would more or less take care of itself&quot; - but that no longer applies to his home nation. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73l97c/us_is_a_danger_to_the_world_warns_top_economist/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219995 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*: **U.S.**^#1 **Sachs**^#2 **More**^#3 **United**^#4 **going**^#5\""},{"docid":"271633","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://en.econreporter.com/en/2017/06/effects-unconventional-exchange-rate-monetary-policy-explained-joseph-gagnon/) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In this interview, we discussed one of his latest research paper &quot;Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies&quot; and the new book he coauthored with C. Fred Bergsten, &quot;Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States&quot;. > The latest paper that you are talking about &quot;Direct and Spillover Effects of Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies&quot; which is in the Open Economy Review, and also a working paper in the IMF and Federal Reserve. > Some countries let the central bank take the lead. Other countries let the finance ministry takes the lead. In exchange rate policies, you see quite a lot of differences also. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f2f1w/the_effects_of_unconventional_exchange_rate_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135699 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*: **Policy**^#1 **country**^#2 **think**^#3 **Currency**^#4 **Exchange**^#5\""},{"docid":"396439","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-04/universal-basic-income-is-neither-universal-nor-basic) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > When people speak about universal basic income they usually mean national basic income. > When Musk said that &quot;There&#039;s a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income due to automation,&quot; and when Obama said that &quot;Whether a universal income is the right model that&#039;s a debate that we&#039;ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years,&quot; it is unclear who &quot;We&quot; are. > Even if universal basic income means that poor people in 2050 will enjoy much better medical care and education than today, they might still feel that the system is rigged against them, that the government serves only the super-rich, and that the future will be even worse for them and their children. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fdjpz/artificial_intelligence_is_going_to_put_many_out/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~136767 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*: **basic**^#1 **income**^#2 **human**^#3 **might**^#4 **job**^#5\""},{"docid":"559612","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > THE Australian mortgage market has &quot;Ballooned&quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &quot;House of cards&quot;, a new report warns. > The report describes the system as a &quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. > Melbourne&#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207582 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\""},{"docid":"589003","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-14/poloz-sees-canada-growth-moderating-while-sanguine-on-inflation) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Canadian growth will moderate in the second half of the year, as the Bank of Canada remains in &quot;Intense data-dependent mode&quot; in its consideration of whether to raise interest rates again at a time inflation is sluggish, Governor Stephen Poloz said. > Poloz, speaking to reporters Saturday in Washington, said there&#039;s a sense of &quot;Comfort&quot; that the global economy continues to improve while adding that Canada, which is leading the Group of Seven in growth, has not seen all citizens benefit equally. > The so-called Canada Child Benefit has had a &quot;Pretty significant&quot; impact on the Canadian economy, Poloz said, adding it could be one of the reasons Canada has seen rising labor-force participation. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76wh0r/poloz_sees_canada_growth_moderating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~229685 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*: **Poloz**^#1 **economy**^#2 **Canada**^#3 **growth**^#4 **Canadian**^#5\""},{"docid":"201871","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2017/08/characterizing-the-decline-of-manufacturing-employment/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The question we&#039;re asking today is whether this decline is due to workers leaving the manufacturing sector voluntarily or not. > In other words, there&#039;s considerable movement in the market for manufacturing workers and only a small part of it is about the sector downsizing its labor force. > For the third graph, start with manufacturing layoffs as in the second graph, from &quot;Edit Graph&quot; edit the existing line by adding &quot;Manufacturing quits,&quot; and apply the formula a+b. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sot16/characterizing_the_decline_of_manufacturing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~187238 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*: **manufacturing**^#1 **graph**^#2 **layoffs**^#3 **decline**^#4 **employment**^#5\""},{"docid":"486557","title":"","text":"\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\""},{"docid":"301877","title":"","text":"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Republicans drafting the tax bill have kept its details closely held, and they would not comment on Friday about whether 401(k) changes were under discussion. > Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee &quot;Are developing pro-growth tax reform policies that will encourage and support retirement savings for all Americans,&quot; a committee spokeswoman said. > The tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders released last month promised to retain &quot;Tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security.&quot; It left the door open to changes in the current system, saying that &quot;The committees are encouraged to simplify these benefits to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788pfk/republicans_consider_sharp_cut_in_401k/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233609 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*: **tax**^#1 **save**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **Committee**^#5\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"416390\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/02/carbon-capture-plant-bad-investment/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Although we can&#039;t compare the costs because Climeworks doesn&#039;t state the cost of their plant on their website-probably because it&#039;s egregiously high, we do know the cost of planting trees. > That means that only $17,640 worth of trees could do the work of the multi-million dollar Hinwil carbon-capture plant. > According to Spencer P Morrison, this paper&#039;s editor-in-chief, the Hinwil carbon plant may be &quot;The worst investment in human history&quot;, and is &quot;Symptomatic of a complete disregard for common sense, and utter contempt for the working man&quot;. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fje5k/worlds_first_multimillion_dollar_carboncapture/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~137400 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*: **plant**^#1 **tree**^#2 **carbon**^#3 **more**^#4 **dioxide**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"158252\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-trump-picks-idUSKBN18T2VE?il=0) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The conservative picks come as Fed Chair Janet Yellen continues to slowly raise interest rates and lay out plans to shed some of the trillions of dollars of bonds bought in the wake of the financial crisis. > &quot;Many market participants have been barking up the wrong tree, arguing that Trump is an easy money guy because he borrowed a lot when he was a real-estate tycoon,&quot; said Stephen Stanley, Amherst Pierpont&#039;s chief economist, who worked for Goodfriend when he was at the Richmond Fed. > &quot;If these two nominees are eventually confirmed, the tone of the Fed Board will instantly swing to a far more hawkish tenor.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f1uue/trump_makes_two_conservative_picks_for_fed_ny/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~135644 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*: **Fed**^#1 **Goodfriend**^#2 **rate**^#3 **hike**^#4 **Trump**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"533974\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/this-smart-tree-has-the-environmental-benefits-of-a-small-forest/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > So a single &#039;tree&#039; that has the environmental benefits of a small forest has the potential to be a game changer - and that&#039;s exactly what CityTrees are hoping to be. > The trees&#039; inventors estimate that a single structure has the environmental benefits of 275 urban trees, but taking up 99% less space and at just 5% of the cost. > Although each tree costs around $25,000, the cost can be mitigated by the potential for advertising on the trees via logos and screens on the unit. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6t3mka/the_new_smart_tree_a_single_structure_has_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~188906 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*: **tree**^#1 **unit**^#2 **CityTree**^#3 **cost**^#4 **City**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"12373\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience. All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint. This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly. White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades. The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy. Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long! The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer. So if I understand it, your question is now \\\"\\\"At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments\\\"\\\". This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle. With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell. You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell. There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision. Not saying \\\"\\\"Don't do it\\\"\\\", but don't rationalize it to yourself as \\\"\\\"we're saving money by doing this now.\\\"\\\" Maybe use the rationalization \\\"\\\"We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out.\\\"\\\" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply. Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"129656\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I would say binomial tree, except your last sentence, > The probabilities of the various outcomes are unknown. causes issues with that. You could do a scenario analysis in which you compare values using different %chances of up vs. down.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"64022\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I agree, but if that's *all* a person wants to discuss out of that story thats missing the forest for the trees. Also for the record, the $800 billion in 2007-2008 vs the larger muni bond market isn't actually a lie. You simply had a problem that it referred to more than just the 2007-2008 time frame. That's all. And either way it isn't material to the larger story here which was the fraud. Nobody got 'caught lying'.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"235435\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\">I'm not going to engage you in a philosophical debate about corporations vs. people. Corporations are legal structures given a legal status by government to facilitate the cooperation of labor, production and capital. In return for this, corporations are subject to regulations and laws. They are not people. This is something \\\"\\\"corporations are people, my friends\\\"\\\" needs to learn. >P.S. Not taxing losses is hardly corporate welfare and GE did not get a tax \\\"\\\"refund.\\\"\\\" So where did they get that money from? Where do you think that $3.4billion came from? Do you think that $3.4billion just magically appeared out of thin air? Do you think GE invented a tree that grows money? That $3.4billion came from taxpayers/US Treasury because GE carried over losses - as such it was refund.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"502271\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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%\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"311951\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/a-new-way-to-learn-economics) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A group of economists from both sides of the Atlantic, part of a project called CORE Econ, has put together a new introductory economics curriculum, one that is modern, comprehensive, and freely available online. > In many countries, groups of students demanded an overhaul in how economics was taught, with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems. > In his highly popular &quot;Principles of Economics,&quot; Harvard&#039;s N. Gregory Mankiw begins by listing a set of ten basic principles, which include &quot;Rational people think at the margin,&quot; &quot;Trade can make everybody better off,&quot; and &quot;Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zkgmk/a_new_way_to_learn_economics/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~208302 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*: **economic**^#1 **students**^#2 **CORE**^#3 **more**^#4 **curriculum**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"430974\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots. The quotes on NYSE are for single shares. That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand. The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock. The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market. A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen. It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered. There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"37243\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://eurbaninsight.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/modelling-an-agent-based-general-equilibrium-model-in-python/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The extension from this partial equilibrium in a single market to general equilibrium reflects the idea that it may not be legitimate to speak of equilibrium with respect to a single commodity when supply and demand in that market depend on the prices of other goods. > On this view, a coherent theory of the price system and the coordination of economic activity has to consider the simultaneous general equilibrium of all markets in the economy. > Labor print(&quot;Price:&quot;, price, &quot;Product:&quot; , product, &quot;Labortime:&quot;,labor ) def demand(lili, comps, wage): demand = totalwork = 0 totallabortime = 0 for indiv in lili: for comp in comps: indiv. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70sqwg/how_to_model_an_agent_based_general_equilibrium/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~211887 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*: **Price**^#1 **comp**^#2 **weight**^#3 **def**^#4 **market**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"64121\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/440dc0bb5b464b1dbd8aa7714f779c48) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Martin Shkreli, the eccentric former pharmaceutical CEO notorious for a price-gouging scandal and for his snide &quot;Pharma Bro&quot; persona on social media, was convicted Friday on federal charges he deceived investors in a pair of failed hedge funds. > &quot;There is an image issue that Martin and I are going to be discussing in the next few days,&quot; he said, adding that while Shkreli was a brilliant mind, sometimes his &quot;People skills&quot; need work. > Shkreli&#039;s lawyer agreed his client could be annoying but said his hedge fund investors knew what they were getting. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6rncn2/pharma_bro_shkreli_is_convicted_at_securities/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~183442 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*: **Shkreli**^#1 **investors**^#2 **million**^#3 **case**^#4 **prosecutor**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"17274\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/11/universal-basic-income-needed-break-addiction-economic-growth-killing-us) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > As some tech giants throw their weight behind the idea of a universal basic income, one anthropologist says it&#039;s a key component of a strategy to break the &quot;Addiction to economic growth [that] is killing us&quot; and the planet. > The idea of a universal basic income is gaining attention in the U.S. thanks to a recent resolution put forth in Hawaii, and Philip Alston, U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said earlier this summer that a basic income is &quot;a bold and imaginative solution&quot; amidst growing economic insecurity. > Laura Williams of the U.K.-based advocacy group Global Justice Now recently asked, &quot;Has the time for universal basic income come?&quot;. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tlybg/jason_hickel_ubi_needed_to_break_addiction_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~190425 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*: **basic**^#1 **income**^#2 **Hickel**^#3 **economic**^#4 **planet**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"205723\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.theage.com.au/business/china/chinas-bank-chief-warns-of-a-sharp-correction-20171020-gz4xs1.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > China&#039;s central bank has warned in the clearest language to date that extreme credit creation and trouble in the shadow banking system could lead to a full-blown financial crisis. > Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People&#039;s Bank, spoke of &quot;Fierce market reactions&quot; and possibly a Minsky Moment, the tipping point when credit cycles break and euphoric booms collapse under their own weight. > The problem with the assault on shadow banking is that private companies rely on this form of credit, while the state-owned behemoths or &quot;SOEs&quot; gobble up most of the available loans from the &quot;Big five&quot; state banks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77tfnk/chinas_bank_chief_warns_of_a_sharp_correction/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~232474 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*: **bank**^#1 **China**^#2 **credit**^#3 **financial**^#4 **per**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"31542\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/a-gary-cohn-resignation-would-crash-the-markets-jeffrey-sonnenfeld.html) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The New York Times reported Wednesday that Cohn, who is Jewish, was &quot;Upset&quot; and &quot;Disgusted&quot; with President Donald Trump&#039;s response to Saturday&#039;s deadly white nationalist rally in Virginia. > During a heated press conference Tuesday, Trump defended his comments that &quot;Both sides&quot; were to blame for the violence over the weekend that left a counterprotester dead. That prompted several members of Trump&#039;s advisory councils to announce their resignations, which caused Trump to eventually dissolve the councils entirely. > A Cohn resignation could be a hit to Trump&#039;s plans to revamp the tax code. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ub6qf/a_gary_cohn_resignation_would_crash_the_markets/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~193173 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*: **Trump**^#1 **Cohn**^#2 **White**^#3 **markets**^#4 **CNBC**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"324432\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/17298/can-the-stock-market-show-indefinite-exponential-growth) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The economist&#039;s answer to this is &quot;Yes, of course economic growth can continue indefinitely.&quot; And so to answer also your narrower question, &quot;Yes, of course the stock market can show indefinite exponential growth.\\\"\\\" > Fallacy #1. &quot;Economic growth is about making ever more&quot;Stuff&quot;, digging ever more gold and other natural resources out of the ground, burning ever more energy, etc. > Energy growth has far outstripped population growth, so that per-capita energy use has surged dramatically over time-our energy lives today are far richer than those of our great-great-grandparents a century ago. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k6nrv/is_indefinite_economic_growth_possible/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~155081 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*: **growth**^#1 **energy**^#2 **ever**^#3 **economic**^#4 **well-being**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"409786\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/19/trumps-new-nickname-rocket-man-for-kim-jong-un-is-brilliant-commentary.html) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A wave of shock rippled through Twitter and the media after President Trump called North Korean President Kim Jong Un a &quot;Rocket Man&quot; in his speech before the United Nations Tuesday. > Kim Jong Un might be using missiles as his weapon of choice but when President Trump goes into battle, his weapon of choice seems to be ridicule - and a catchy nickname to make it stick. > Here in the U.S., it&#039;s always been very nice that when presidents run for re-election, even their opponents have traditionally referred to them as either &quot;Mr. President,&quot; or used the &quot;President&quot; title before their last names every time. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/719ow5/trumps_new_nickname_rocket_man_for_kim_jong_un_is/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~213432 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*: **President**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **even**^#3 **United**^#4 **Kim**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"44521\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Try ThinkOrSwim by TDAmeritrade. It allows you to paper trade with a powerful trading platform. There's also a mobile app so you can trade on the go. Good luck!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"458828\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/10/how-world-s-greatest-financial-experiment-enriched-rich) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a little under a decade, central bank &quot;Kitchens&quot; in the US, Europe, the UK and Japan have inundated financial markets with more than $8trn using a system dubbed &quot;Quantitative easing&quot;. > David Blanchflower, an economics professor, sat on the Bank of England&#039;s Monetary Policy Committee that introduced QE. &quot;In 2008, we had to get borrowing rates down to save the economy. But how much money do you create to get interest rates down by a quarter of a percentage point? Is it &pound;50bn or more? We had no idea of the amounts needed. It was a bit &#039;suck it and see&#039;,&quot; he told me. > &quot;The problem,&quot; said Glenn Stevens in his final speech as Australia&#039;s central bank governor, &quot;Is that there is a limit to how much we can expect to achieve by relying on already indebted entities taking on more debt.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/755b2x/how_the_worlds_greatest_financial_experiment/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~224617 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*: **bank**^#1 **bond**^#2 **more**^#3 **Central**^#4 **money**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"221082\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/tillerson-called-trump-a-moron-says-report.html) reduced by 59%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Secretary of State Rex Tillerson openly referred to President Donald Trump as a &quot;Moron&quot; after a July 20 meeting at the Pentagon, according to NBC News, citing multiple senior administration officials. > &quot;I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...,&quot; Trump said in a tweet. > In its report, NBC said Tillerson&#039;s top State Department spokesman, R.C. Hammond, denied that the secretary had considered quitting this summer and denied that Tillerson called Trump a &quot;Moron.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/748mto/tillerson_reportedly_described_trump_as_a_moron/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~221883 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*: **Tillerson**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **State**^#3 **Secretary**^#4 **officials**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"15938\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/05/monday-smackdown-physics-professor-phil-price-the-nimbyist.html) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Must-Read I disagree with Noah Smith: reading Phil Price convinced me that Phil Price is an idiot, that for many, many people NIMBYism is not a &quot;Flawed but serious package of ideas&quot; but rather &quot;Simple ignorance&quot;-or, perhaps, rather, very hard work to remain ignorant, in a way that is supportive of the &quot;Selfishness of incumbent homeowners trying to feather their own nests... [and] white people trying to exclude poor minorities from their communities while still appearing liberal...&quot;. > Always remind people that the price of an apartment... doesn&#039;t come built into its walls and floors. > Acknowledge that induced demand is a real thing, and think seriously about how new housing supply within a city changes the location decisions of people not currently living in that city. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejttl/monday_smackdown_physics_professor_phil_price_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~133580 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*: **people**^#1 **apartment**^#2 **city**^#3 **think**^#4 **NIMBY**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"211028\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/california-once-compared-to-greece-now-trading-better-than-aaa) reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Seven years ago, California was &quot;The next Greece.&quot; Today, the state&#039;s bonds are trading better than AAA. As the Golden State benefits from record-breaking stock prices, Silicon Valley&#039;s boom and a resurgent real estate market, demand for tax-exempt debt in the state with the highest top income tax rate in the U.S. is &quot;Insatiable,&quot; said Nicholos Venditti, a portfolio manager for Thornburg Investment Management. > An investor Tuesday bought about $1.1 million of state general obligation bonds maturing in six years at a yield of 1.33 percent, or 4.3 basis points below AAA rated bonds with the same maturity. > If the market turns and spreads widen, investors holding California bonds may be &quot;Hit disproportionately hard,&quot; Venditti said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6swqdv/california_once_compared_to_greece_is_now_trading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~188113 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*: **bond**^#1 **California**^#2 **Venditti**^#3 **State**^#4 **investor**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"270154\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-policy-development/u-s-is-a-danger-to-the-world-warns-top-economist-idUSKCN1C41XD) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BARCELONA - A global push to end poverty and hunger, and combat climate change by 2030 is at risk from American &quot;Militarism&quot;, powerful business interests and the actions of President Donald Trump, said leading U.S. economist and U.N. special adviser Jeffrey Sachs. > &quot;More and more I see that while the kind of technical solutions I work on are very important ... the real obstacles that we are fighting every day are the political obstacles, the headwinds of powerful interests, bad ways of doing things,&quot; he added. > Sachs, who has helped some 100 countries shape their policies, said he had expected to focus on international development issues &quot;Because the U.S. would more or less take care of itself&quot; - but that no longer applies to his home nation. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73l97c/us_is_a_danger_to_the_world_warns_top_economist/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~219995 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*: **U.S.**^#1 **Sachs**^#2 **More**^#3 **United**^#4 **going**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"271633\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://en.econreporter.com/en/2017/06/effects-unconventional-exchange-rate-monetary-policy-explained-joseph-gagnon/) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In this interview, we discussed one of his latest research paper &quot;Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies&quot; and the new book he coauthored with C. Fred Bergsten, &quot;Currency Conflict and Trade Policy: A New Strategy for the United States&quot;. > The latest paper that you are talking about &quot;Direct and Spillover Effects of Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies&quot; which is in the Open Economy Review, and also a working paper in the IMF and Federal Reserve. > Some countries let the central bank take the lead. Other countries let the finance ministry takes the lead. In exchange rate policies, you see quite a lot of differences also. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6f2f1w/the_effects_of_unconventional_exchange_rate_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~135699 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*: **Policy**^#1 **country**^#2 **think**^#3 **Currency**^#4 **Exchange**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"396439\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-04/universal-basic-income-is-neither-universal-nor-basic) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > When people speak about universal basic income they usually mean national basic income. > When Musk said that &quot;There&#039;s a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income due to automation,&quot; and when Obama said that &quot;Whether a universal income is the right model that&#039;s a debate that we&#039;ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years,&quot; it is unclear who &quot;We&quot; are. > Even if universal basic income means that poor people in 2050 will enjoy much better medical care and education than today, they might still feel that the system is rigged against them, that the government serves only the super-rich, and that the future will be even worse for them and their children. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fdjpz/artificial_intelligence_is_going_to_put_many_out/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~136767 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*: **basic**^#1 **income**^#2 **human**^#3 **might**^#4 **job**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"559612\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > THE Australian mortgage market has &quot;Ballooned&quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &quot;House of cards&quot;, a new report warns. > The report describes the system as a &quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. > Melbourne&#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~207582 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"589003\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-14/poloz-sees-canada-growth-moderating-while-sanguine-on-inflation) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Canadian growth will moderate in the second half of the year, as the Bank of Canada remains in &quot;Intense data-dependent mode&quot; in its consideration of whether to raise interest rates again at a time inflation is sluggish, Governor Stephen Poloz said. > Poloz, speaking to reporters Saturday in Washington, said there&#039;s a sense of &quot;Comfort&quot; that the global economy continues to improve while adding that Canada, which is leading the Group of Seven in growth, has not seen all citizens benefit equally. > The so-called Canada Child Benefit has had a &quot;Pretty significant&quot; impact on the Canadian economy, Poloz said, adding it could be one of the reasons Canada has seen rising labor-force participation. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76wh0r/poloz_sees_canada_growth_moderating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~229685 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*: **Poloz**^#1 **economy**^#2 **Canada**^#3 **growth**^#4 **Canadian**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"201871\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2017/08/characterizing-the-decline-of-manufacturing-employment/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The question we&#039;re asking today is whether this decline is due to workers leaving the manufacturing sector voluntarily or not. > In other words, there&#039;s considerable movement in the market for manufacturing workers and only a small part of it is about the sector downsizing its labor force. > For the third graph, start with manufacturing layoffs as in the second graph, from &quot;Edit Graph&quot; edit the existing line by adding &quot;Manufacturing quits,&quot; and apply the formula a+b. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sot16/characterizing_the_decline_of_manufacturing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~187238 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*: **manufacturing**^#1 **graph**^#2 **layoffs**^#3 **decline**^#4 **employment**^#5\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"486557\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \\\"\\\"Apex\\\"\\\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"301877\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/politics/republicans-tax-401-k.html) reduced by 71%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Republicans drafting the tax bill have kept its details closely held, and they would not comment on Friday about whether 401(k) changes were under discussion. > Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee &quot;Are developing pro-growth tax reform policies that will encourage and support retirement savings for all Americans,&quot; a committee spokeswoman said. > The tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders released last month promised to retain &quot;Tax benefits that encourage work, higher education and retirement security.&quot; It left the door open to changes in the current system, saying that &quot;The committees are encouraged to simplify these benefits to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788pfk/republicans_consider_sharp_cut_in_401k/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~233609 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*: **tax**^#1 **save**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **Committee**^#5\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":96,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7490"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Clarify on some Stocks Terminology"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"173836","title":"","text":"\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \"\"15.5K @ $60.00\"\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \"\"institutional investor\"\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\""},{"docid":"372153","title":"","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."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"173836\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \\\"\\\"15.5K @ $60.00\\\"\\\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \\\"\\\"institutional investor\\\"\\\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"372153\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"61103","title":"","text":"I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split. That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004. It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely). They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online. It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant."},{"docid":"488145","title":"","text":"\"There is only one way to create \"\"stable\"\" income using options: write COVERED calls. This means you must own some stocks which offer an active and liquid option market (FB would be good; T would be useless.) In other words, you need to own some \"\"unstable\"\" stocks, tickers that have sometimes scary volatility, and of course these are not great stocks for a retiree. But, let's assume you own 500 shares of FB, which you bought in June of 2015 for $75. Today, you could have been paid $2,375 for selling five Mar18'16 $105 Calls. Your reasoning is: So, the rule is: ONLY SELL COVERED CALLS AT A PRICE YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT. If you follow the rule, you'll generate more-or-less \"\"stable\"\" income. Do not venture off this narrow path into the rest of Option Land. There be dragons. You can select strike prices that are far out of the money to minimize the chance of being exercised (and sweeten the deal by collecting an even higher price if the stock flies that high). If you are thinking about doing this, study the subject thoroughly until you know the terminology backwards and forwards. (Don't worry about \"\"the greeks\"\" since market makers manipulate implied volatility so wildly that it overrides everything else.)\""},{"docid":"163630","title":"","text":"\"I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the \"\"one strike in\"\" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters.\""},{"docid":"444668","title":"","text":"\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\""},{"docid":"253998","title":"","text":"\"> It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \"\"short\"\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\""},{"docid":"522049","title":"","text":"\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\""},{"docid":"433471","title":"","text":"I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price."},{"docid":"565765","title":"","text":"I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends."},{"docid":"419138","title":"","text":"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls"},{"docid":"470725","title":"","text":"\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \"\"stock analysis\"\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\""},{"docid":"358826","title":"","text":"\"again, you feel compelled to add terminology that you don't seem to understand. There is no chicanery necessary to \"\"bet\"\" against a company. It's called shorting. Our you buy a sell option (a \"\"put\"\"). These have been around for ever. Individuals can do it if they desire. Market manipulation is another matter and certainly does happen. Thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence that FB's stock price was manipulated downward, it was just over-priced to begin with.\""},{"docid":"394454","title":"","text":"\"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \"\"10,000 stocks\"\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\""},{"docid":"27401","title":"","text":"\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\""},{"docid":"93484","title":"","text":"Good grief! Ask a Republican to define their terminology to avoid conflict and confusion, and you get labeled a liberal. Honestly, the stupid labeling thing is one of the most obfuscating and idiotic parts of our political discourse these day. The idea here is to remove obfuscation so we can get to the point. Clarify yourself! You have declared paying government employees better than others is waste. You’ve also declared the current government delivery system is waste. But the whole system is NOT waste. Parse it out. You don’t want people paid more than a business can afford, right? So there is no financial loss? You don’t want a system in place that can’t afford to pay for itself, now or in the foreseeable future (after all, everyone should have a chance to recover), right? But when you say there is waste in the government, I have to be sure you are discussing complete value, including social, educational, technological, national, military, and not just budget. This is important because MY arguments hinge on the non-budget side, whereas yours seem to focus on the financial aspects. Not that these are the whole of either of our views. They are simply the focuses we have used in this discussion. So, stop with the cheap jabs, and we’ll continue. There are many wasteful aspects of the government. I agree with that. It there are many things the go ernment does that private industry either can’t or won’t do. Biggest of these is corporations will not go out of their way to protect their citizens. They will do what they are paid to do, and nothing else. The postal service will probably never be closed or privatized. If it were, however, I would love too see how the cost of delivery and the pay for delivery employees are affected. I agree the question of why government waste exists is the most important. But in order to see it clearly, we must get a lay of the land. We need to review two edge cases: 1) Where is the most waste? Why is it so extreme here? 2) Where is the least waste? Why is this part of the government more efficient? Then we can inspect the different influences in each system and explore why efficiency isn’t enforced or encouraged in so many government areas, and what can be done to improve efficiency, or if it is an area that the nation would do better with privatization instead."},{"docid":"315972","title":"","text":"You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!"},{"docid":"439719","title":"","text":"Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up."},{"docid":"176859","title":"","text":"I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:"},{"docid":"286698","title":"","text":"I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes."},{"docid":"151203","title":"","text":"A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in."},{"docid":"427300","title":"","text":"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market."},{"docid":"513827","title":"","text":"As the record date is 7th August, you need to hold stocks on the 7th August closing. You need not hold it till 2nd Sept. The list as taken on 7th August would be processed and instructions given to Bank and the dividends credited by 1st Sept. Edit: To Clarify Victor's comment Typically from the time one sells the stocks to the time it actually gets transferred has a clearing cycle. Most stock exchanges have 2 or 3 days cycles. i.e. if I sell the stock today, it is still in my name. The money is still with the buyer. On Day 1, the positions are arrived at. On Day 2 the stock gets credited to the buyer and the funds gets credit to seller. As the question was specific whether to hold the stock till 7th or 22nd Sept, my initial answer was simple. The illustration by Victor is more accurate."},{"docid":"5649","title":"","text":"\"For customer accounts that you have with a merchant, normally a positive balance in the account is what you owe the merchant. When you have a credit on the account or a negative balance, it usually means that it is an amount that the merchant owes you. This could be because you paid too much, or perhaps it is because the merchant is giving you a refund for some reason. However, it is always a possibility that this particular merchant is not using the terminology in the conventional way. If you aren't sure, the best thing to do is to ask the merchant directly by contacting their customer service department. Just judging from the screenshot you posted, it looks to me like they owe you some money. I suggest you click the \"\"Statement\"\" button; it looks like that will generate some type of statement that will instruct the merchant to send you a refund. But that is only a guess. Their customer service should be able to tell you what to do.\""},{"docid":"137415","title":"","text":"Let me explain this for you: - Massive decrease in sales from 2009-2010= bad government (Obama/Bernanke). - Even bigger increase in sales from 2010-2013= substantive economic growth due to a well-run company. - Later downturn in 2013-2014= bad government (Obama/Bernanke) Basically, when a company is increasing overall revenue and profits, that's because economics and free-markets. When a company is losing sales and revenues, that's because Obama. If their stock-price goes up when it shouldn't, that's also because Obama. Stock prices that are high right now are only high because Obama/Bernanke, except when they are high because of something else. When stock prices go down, it will also be because of Obama/Bernanke. Hopefully that clarifies things for you."},{"docid":"139387","title":"","text":"\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\""},{"docid":"174800","title":"","text":"200 is not normal. 140-160 including signing bonus, stock compensation, and base is doable if you go to the big tech companies. That said, it’s like getting into an Ivy League... most wont. I’d say 100-110 is common in the Bay Area. To clarify, this is new grad. For experienced folks 200k total comp is common."},{"docid":"219977","title":"","text":"\"Markets are amoral. If you don't buy stock in a company that has high growth/earnings, someone else will. By abstaining you will actually make it cheaper for someone else who is interested in making money. Investing in \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds will only ensure that you have less money to make a moral difference in the world when you decide to transition from working to philanthropy. Edit to clarify -- You aren't interested in buying individual stocks directly, that leaves you with two general options: You can make a statement with your investment now, or you can take the better returns and make a difference with your money later.\""},{"docid":"316878","title":"","text":"\"The size terminology for lumber is based on the rough cut dimensions from the mill, not the actual size of the board at Home Depot. There's post finishing done to 2x4's, etc from the big box stores. It's been that way for 50 years. If a couple of hipsters got their feelings hurt because they didn't know what they were doing, tell them to watch a youtube video about lumber before screwing up a home improvement project. They wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with an actual rough cut 1x6 anyway. They'd get home with it, and if by some miracle they managed to plane it, they'd realize they're left with a 3/4\"\"x5 3/4\"\" board, just like you get from Home Depot. Grow up, pansies.\""},{"docid":"347189","title":"","text":"Being long something is the same as owning it (generally). Being short something is the same as selling it, with the intention (actually obligation) of buying it back in the future. Being 'short' means that you benefit when the price falls. A call is the right to buy a financial asset, most often a share, at some price agreed upon now, while the the right extends for some defined time into the future. A put is the right to sell something you already own for some price defined now but the right extends for some period into the future. A swaption is an option to enter into a swap. A swap is an agreement to trade cash-flows at defined points in the future, usually some fixed rate for some floating rate (say LIBOR+200bps). EDIT: Clarified puts."},{"docid":"444486","title":"","text":"\"You can group your like-kind (same symbol, ST/LT) stock positions, just be sure that your totals match the total dollar amounts on the 1099. An inconsistency will possibly result in a letter from IRS to clarify. So, if you sold the 100 shares, and they came from 7 different buys, list it once. The sell price and date is known, and for the buy price, add all the buys and put \"\"Various\"\" for the date. If you have both long term and short term groups as part of those 7 buys, split them into two groups and list them separately.\""},{"docid":"322995","title":"","text":"The original note should have had a a clear start and expiration date included with in it (the term). If it did then the term has likely expired by now (since you said it had been years) and you should issue an amendment to the note that clarifies the new term and also clarifies the interest rate terms. If the original note did not have an expiration date then that would be unusual and your mom should work with her friend to execute a new note with clear start and expiration dates and that also clarifies the payment and interest terms. From my experience it is best to include a specific payment schedule within the note as well as very specific and clear terms around how interest will be handled in the event of a missed payment, late payment, or inability to pay the note off in full at expiration. There are many good examples available online to help you craft the appropriate verbiage for your specific needs: http://tinyurl.com/note-examples"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"61103\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split. That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004. It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely). They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online. It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"488145\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There is only one way to create \\\"\\\"stable\\\"\\\" income using options: write COVERED calls. This means you must own some stocks which offer an active and liquid option market (FB would be good; T would be useless.) In other words, you need to own some \\\"\\\"unstable\\\"\\\" stocks, tickers that have sometimes scary volatility, and of course these are not great stocks for a retiree. But, let's assume you own 500 shares of FB, which you bought in June of 2015 for $75. Today, you could have been paid $2,375 for selling five Mar18'16 $105 Calls. Your reasoning is: So, the rule is: ONLY SELL COVERED CALLS AT A PRICE YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT. If you follow the rule, you'll generate more-or-less \\\"\\\"stable\\\"\\\" income. Do not venture off this narrow path into the rest of Option Land. There be dragons. You can select strike prices that are far out of the money to minimize the chance of being exercised (and sweeten the deal by collecting an even higher price if the stock flies that high). If you are thinking about doing this, study the subject thoroughly until you know the terminology backwards and forwards. (Don't worry about \\\"\\\"the greeks\\\"\\\" since market makers manipulate implied volatility so wildly that it overrides everything else.)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"163630\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the \\\"\\\"one strike in\\\"\\\" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"444668\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \\\"\\\"day-trading\\\"\\\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"253998\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"> It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"522049\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Instead of \\\"\\\"stocks\\\"\\\" I would refer to that asset class as \\\"\\\"equity.\\\"\\\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \\\"\\\"fixed income.\\\"\\\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"433471\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"565765\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"419138\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"470725\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Let me start with a somewhat sarcastic statement: There are probably as many things done to analyze a stock as there are people doing the analysis! That said, at a general level an analyst researches the historical performance of the company at a fairly detailed level (operations within divisions of the company, product development cycles within divisions, expenses vs income trends for each division and product, marketing costs, customer acquisition costs, etc); gathers information about what the company is doing now AND planning to do in the future -- often by a discussion with principles at the company; establishes a view on related macro-economic trends, sector and industry trends, demographic trends, etc.; and combines it all to forecast a change in revenues, margins, free cash flow, dividends, etc. over a period of time. They then apply statistics that relate those numbers to stock price in order to imply stock prices and price ranges over those same periods. Finally, depending on how those stock prices compare to the current stock price, they'll classify the stock as Buy, Sell, Hold, etc. This sounds like alot of work. And it generally is if you get detailed about it, which is what professionals or significant money managers are doing. However, there are also lots of arm-chair analysts posting their output on any number of financial sites (Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, etc.) if you'd like to really explore the range of detail some people consider as a \\\"\\\"stock analysis\\\"\\\". That sounds more negative than I intended it to be, so let me clarify that I think some of these write-ups are really quite good IMO.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"358826\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"again, you feel compelled to add terminology that you don't seem to understand. There is no chicanery necessary to \\\"\\\"bet\\\"\\\" against a company. It's called shorting. Our you buy a sell option (a \\\"\\\"put\\\"\\\"). These have been around for ever. Individuals can do it if they desire. Market manipulation is another matter and certainly does happen. Thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence that FB's stock price was manipulated downward, it was just over-priced to begin with.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"394454\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \\\"\\\"10,000 stocks\\\"\\\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"27401\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"93484\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Good grief! Ask a Republican to define their terminology to avoid conflict and confusion, and you get labeled a liberal. Honestly, the stupid labeling thing is one of the most obfuscating and idiotic parts of our political discourse these day. The idea here is to remove obfuscation so we can get to the point. Clarify yourself! You have declared paying government employees better than others is waste. You’ve also declared the current government delivery system is waste. But the whole system is NOT waste. Parse it out. You don’t want people paid more than a business can afford, right? So there is no financial loss? You don’t want a system in place that can’t afford to pay for itself, now or in the foreseeable future (after all, everyone should have a chance to recover), right? But when you say there is waste in the government, I have to be sure you are discussing complete value, including social, educational, technological, national, military, and not just budget. This is important because MY arguments hinge on the non-budget side, whereas yours seem to focus on the financial aspects. Not that these are the whole of either of our views. They are simply the focuses we have used in this discussion. So, stop with the cheap jabs, and we’ll continue. There are many wasteful aspects of the government. I agree with that. It there are many things the go ernment does that private industry either can’t or won’t do. Biggest of these is corporations will not go out of their way to protect their citizens. They will do what they are paid to do, and nothing else. The postal service will probably never be closed or privatized. If it were, however, I would love too see how the cost of delivery and the pay for delivery employees are affected. I agree the question of why government waste exists is the most important. But in order to see it clearly, we must get a lay of the land. We need to review two edge cases: 1) Where is the most waste? Why is it so extreme here? 2) Where is the least waste? Why is this part of the government more efficient? Then we can inspect the different influences in each system and explore why efficiency isn’t enforced or encouraged in so many government areas, and what can be done to improve efficiency, or if it is an area that the nation would do better with privatization instead.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"315972\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"439719\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"176859\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"286698\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"151203\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"427300\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"513827\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"As the record date is 7th August, you need to hold stocks on the 7th August closing. You need not hold it till 2nd Sept. The list as taken on 7th August would be processed and instructions given to Bank and the dividends credited by 1st Sept. Edit: To Clarify Victor's comment Typically from the time one sells the stocks to the time it actually gets transferred has a clearing cycle. Most stock exchanges have 2 or 3 days cycles. i.e. if I sell the stock today, it is still in my name. The money is still with the buyer. On Day 1, the positions are arrived at. On Day 2 the stock gets credited to the buyer and the funds gets credit to seller. As the question was specific whether to hold the stock till 7th or 22nd Sept, my initial answer was simple. The illustration by Victor is more accurate.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"5649\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"For customer accounts that you have with a merchant, normally a positive balance in the account is what you owe the merchant. When you have a credit on the account or a negative balance, it usually means that it is an amount that the merchant owes you. This could be because you paid too much, or perhaps it is because the merchant is giving you a refund for some reason. However, it is always a possibility that this particular merchant is not using the terminology in the conventional way. If you aren't sure, the best thing to do is to ask the merchant directly by contacting their customer service department. Just judging from the screenshot you posted, it looks to me like they owe you some money. I suggest you click the \\\"\\\"Statement\\\"\\\" button; it looks like that will generate some type of statement that will instruct the merchant to send you a refund. But that is only a guess. Their customer service should be able to tell you what to do.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"137415\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Let me explain this for you: - Massive decrease in sales from 2009-2010= bad government (Obama/Bernanke). - Even bigger increase in sales from 2010-2013= substantive economic growth due to a well-run company. - Later downturn in 2013-2014= bad government (Obama/Bernanke) Basically, when a company is increasing overall revenue and profits, that's because economics and free-markets. When a company is losing sales and revenues, that's because Obama. If their stock-price goes up when it shouldn't, that's also because Obama. Stock prices that are high right now are only high because Obama/Bernanke, except when they are high because of something else. When stock prices go down, it will also be because of Obama/Bernanke. Hopefully that clarifies things for you.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"139387\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\" with strings attached. \\\"\\\"Grant\\\"\\\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"174800\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"200 is not normal. 140-160 including signing bonus, stock compensation, and base is doable if you go to the big tech companies. That said, it’s like getting into an Ivy League... most wont. I’d say 100-110 is common in the Bay Area. To clarify, this is new grad. For experienced folks 200k total comp is common.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"219977\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Markets are amoral. If you don't buy stock in a company that has high growth/earnings, someone else will. By abstaining you will actually make it cheaper for someone else who is interested in making money. Investing in \\\"\\\"socially responsible\\\"\\\" funds will only ensure that you have less money to make a moral difference in the world when you decide to transition from working to philanthropy. Edit to clarify -- You aren't interested in buying individual stocks directly, that leaves you with two general options: You can make a statement with your investment now, or you can take the better returns and make a difference with your money later.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"316878\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The size terminology for lumber is based on the rough cut dimensions from the mill, not the actual size of the board at Home Depot. There's post finishing done to 2x4's, etc from the big box stores. It's been that way for 50 years. If a couple of hipsters got their feelings hurt because they didn't know what they were doing, tell them to watch a youtube video about lumber before screwing up a home improvement project. They wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with an actual rough cut 1x6 anyway. They'd get home with it, and if by some miracle they managed to plane it, they'd realize they're left with a 3/4\\\"\\\"x5 3/4\\\"\\\" board, just like you get from Home Depot. Grow up, pansies.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"347189\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Being long something is the same as owning it (generally). Being short something is the same as selling it, with the intention (actually obligation) of buying it back in the future. Being 'short' means that you benefit when the price falls. A call is the right to buy a financial asset, most often a share, at some price agreed upon now, while the the right extends for some defined time into the future. A put is the right to sell something you already own for some price defined now but the right extends for some period into the future. A swaption is an option to enter into a swap. A swap is an agreement to trade cash-flows at defined points in the future, usually some fixed rate for some floating rate (say LIBOR+200bps). EDIT: Clarified puts.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"444486\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You can group your like-kind (same symbol, ST/LT) stock positions, just be sure that your totals match the total dollar amounts on the 1099. An inconsistency will possibly result in a letter from IRS to clarify. So, if you sold the 100 shares, and they came from 7 different buys, list it once. The sell price and date is known, and for the buy price, add all the buys and put \\\"\\\"Various\\\"\\\" for the date. If you have both long term and short term groups as part of those 7 buys, split them into two groups and list them separately.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"322995\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The original note should have had a a clear start and expiration date included with in it (the term). If it did then the term has likely expired by now (since you said it had been years) and you should issue an amendment to the note that clarifies the new term and also clarifies the interest rate terms. If the original note did not have an expiration date then that would be unusual and your mom should work with her friend to execute a new note with clear start and expiration dates and that also clarifies the payment and interest terms. From my experience it is best to include a specific payment schedule within the note as well as very specific and clear terms around how interest will be handled in the event of a missed payment, late payment, or inability to pay the note off in full at expiration. There are many good examples available online to help you craft the appropriate verbiage for your specific needs: http://tinyurl.com/note-examples\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":97,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10061"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What are reasons a company would want to be listed on one exchange vs. another?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"474279","title":"","text":"Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors. No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet. Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"474279\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors. No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet. Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"127578","title":"","text":"Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation."},{"docid":"537222","title":"","text":"If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell."},{"docid":"444749","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"172840","title":"","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."},{"docid":"499875","title":"","text":"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)"},{"docid":"94336","title":"","text":"\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\""},{"docid":"256035","title":"","text":"Investors who are themselves Canadian and already hold Canadian dollars (CAD) would be more likely to purchase the TSX-listed shares that are quoted in CAD, thus avoiding the currency exchange fees that would be required to buy USD-quoted shares listed on the NYSE. Assuming Shopify is only offering a single class of shares to the public in the IPO (and Shopify's form F-1 only mentions Class A subordinate voting shares as being offered) then the shares that will trade on the TSX and NYSE will be the same class, i.e. identical. Consequently, the primary difference will be the currency in which they are quoted and trade. This adds another dimension to possible arbitrage, where not only the bare price could deviate between exchanges, but also due to currency fluctuation. An additional implication for a company to maintain such a dual listing is that they'll need to adhere to the requirements of both the TSX and NYSE. While this may have a hard cost in terms of additional filing requirements etc., in theory they will benefit from the additional liquidity provided by having the multiple listings. Canadians, in particular, are more likely to invest in a Canadian company when it has a TSX listing quoted in CAD. Also, for a company listed on both the TSX and NYSE, I would expect the TSX listing would be more likely to yield inclusion in a significant market index—say, one based on market capitalization, and thus benefit the company by having its shares purchased by index ETFs and index mutual funds that track the index. I'll also remark that this dual U.S./Canadian exchange listing is not uncommon when it comes to Canadian companies that have significant business outside of Canada."},{"docid":"225877","title":"","text":"Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question."},{"docid":"505865","title":"","text":"Okay. They're faster than most other computers. They either have a dedicated fiber line or are physically closer. But anyways, they flood the NYSE with tons of orders to slow it down. So they see another broker's order in the line up and delete the bogus orders. They can then make the purchase faster than the other guy. The other guy now has to pay a higher strike price than he initially thought the bid would be. So let's say Apple's quote is 1.00 They send one order for apple One for IBM One for Yahoo One for NBC Comcast They see another guy wants Apple. So they cancel the orders for IBM, Yahoo and NBC Comcast and leave the Apple one to complete. The Apple one goes through and then they automatically resell it to the guy looking to buy Apple at a price of 1.0001 TLDR They flood a bunch of orders at a bunch of different prices/quantities. They cancel before it goes through unless they see someone else wants it. If that person wants it they don't cancel. edit: I don't even know if all or any of those stocks are listed on the NYSE. In today's world it doesn't make a difference anymore. However, replace NYSE with any exchange and the stock with any ticker symbol. edit 2: They could also manipulate cross listing. Listing the same stock on two different exchanges. Those prices are mostly uniform but of course higher volume on one could mean a higher price on one before they stabilize. So if you can move fast you can buy the stock at the lower price and sell it on the exchange with the higher price."},{"docid":"151132","title":"","text":"\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\""},{"docid":"189819","title":"","text":"Interest rate swaps are used to transfer risk from one party to another. They can be used to transfer many types of risk but most common are interest rate risk and exchange rate risk There are a few key concepts that I have noticed most people have trouble with which Are below: 1) The Notional amount: this is the amount that the two legs (the floating and fixed) will be based on. If you think about each leg as a loan the notional amount would be the principal, however in a swap this amount never changes hands. Rather it is just an amount used to calculate what the dollar amount exchanged should be. 2) The floating and fixed legs are the interest rates that will be exchanged. The fixed leg will always pay out the same amount no matter the changes in the market while the floating rate will change periodically depending on market conditions. As a side note it is often agreed that only the difference in the two rates will be paid rather then sending the money back and forth. 3) And finally it is important to note that at the inception of the swap the notional value will always be 0. Many people miss this but when you think about it no company would want to sign a deal the from inception puts them in a loosing position. I hope that helped without a more specific question all I can do is list random facts about swaps and hope they are useful to you."},{"docid":"189851","title":"","text":"All States have property tax, all States except 4 have sales tax, and business tax is federal but there are local costs of doing business such as various state required insurances and license and payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for the state etc. What I was talking about is personal income tax there are 2 kinds federal that everyone pays then all the states except those I listed take another 4 or 5% give or take which stays in the state instead of being sent off to the feeding government. From a business perspective if the going rate for paying your employees based on their role was say 100k annually. The employees take home pay would be taxed 5k in a state with income tax. That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving."},{"docid":"333755","title":"","text":"\"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a \"\"Tesla Bond\"\", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders]. In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity.\""},{"docid":"435963","title":"","text":"A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions."},{"docid":"260023","title":"","text":"Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange."},{"docid":"248817","title":"","text":"$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services."},{"docid":"306561","title":"","text":"\"The case you are looking at is rather special, because the Chinese government for the longest time did not allow foreigners to invest in Chinese stocks. The ADRs explained in @DStanley's answer are a way around that restriction; recently there are some limited official ways, In general, it is perfectly normal for a stock to appear on different exchanges, in different currencies, and it's all the \"\"real\"\" stock. Because remember: a stock exchange is really nothing more than a fancy place for people to buy and sell stocks. There is absolutely no reason why a specific stock should only be traded in one place. Companies that have decided to be publically tradeable generally want to be traded in as many exchanges as possible, because it makes the stock more liquid, which helps their shareholders. Individual exchanges have different requirements for a stock to be listed for trading there, some may even do it without the company's explicit approval.\""},{"docid":"2966","title":"","text":"\"Right. The definition of \"\"made with 100% chicken\"\" changes depending on whether that particular company sources soy protein and chicken separately and mixes them, vs purchasing it already mixed. The consumer doesn't care if this particular company is putting the chicken and the soy together, all they care about is what's in the package. That's what I mean by the fact that at some level everything with chicken is made with 100% chicken. Legally they can't say that it's made with 100% chicken unless one of the items they purchase from a supplier is just chicken, but morally, biologically, nutritionally and logically it is the same whether they put the chicken into their mixing pot or an upstream supplier does. Lets take a concrete example. This [breakfast sandwich](https://www.jimmydean.com/products/sandwiches/delights/delights-applewood-smoke-chicken-sausage-egg-whites-and-cheese-muffin-sandwiches) is \"\"made with 100% chicken.\"\" Obviously the entire food product is not chicken, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone walking down the aisle and picking it up thought, subconsciously, that the patty on it was 100% chicken. Is it actually? No. It is >98% chicken and water, and <2% other stuff. But what we are actually supposed to infer from that language is that the company who makes this sandwich purchases \"\"100%\"\" chicken, whatever that is, and mixes it with the rest of the ingredients to made something which is mostly chicken. In legal land, that is all that can be inferred from the statement. It's not exactly deceptive, but it's definitely not the clearest terminology that could be employed, and it definitely implies something that simply \"\"made with chicken\"\" does not imply. I agree with you that the package almost always has all the information I would reasonably want on it, though, and in many cases it is obvious. That same sandwich lists all of the ingredients of the patty on the back, so the information is right there if you want to go to the small text.\""},{"docid":"272008","title":"","text":"\"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \"\"whats important to me?\"\", \"\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\"\" \"\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\"\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\""},{"docid":"53993","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"3463","title":"","text":"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems."},{"docid":"514500","title":"","text":"I do believe it comes down to listing requirements. That is getting very close to penny stock territory and typical delisting criteria. I found this answer on Ivestopedia that speaks directly the question of stock price. Another thought is that if everyone were to do it, the rules would change. The exchanges want to promote price appreciation. Otherwise, everything trades in a tight band and there is little point to the whole endeavor. Volatility is another issue that they are concerned about. At such low stock prices, small changes in stock prices are huge percentage changes. (As stated in that Ivestopedia answer, $0.10 swing in the price of a $1 stock is a 10% change.) Also, many fraudsters work in the area of penny stocks. No company wants to be associated with that."},{"docid":"322778","title":"","text":">What I was talking about is personal income tax Got it, thanks for clarifying. >That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. I think cost of living would also be a factor. So I don't know that a state with income tax would automatically not make the cut, as you asserted in your first comment, because the cost of living might be cheaper and even everything out. >This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving. Agreed, there are numerous factors that Amazon will have to consider so I see no reason why a state that has an income tax should not submit an application."},{"docid":"14781","title":"","text":"\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\""},{"docid":"469599","title":"","text":"The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return."},{"docid":"390779","title":"","text":"\"The assumption that companies listed OTC are not serious is far from the truth. Many companies on the OTC are just starting off there because they don't meet the requirements to be listed on the NASDAQ or NYSE. Major stock exchanges like the NASDAQ and the NYSE only want the best companies to trade on their exchanges.The NASDAQ, for example, has three sets of listing requirements. A company must meet at least one of the three requirement sets, as well as the main rules for all companies. These include: Now don't assume that the OTC doesn't have rules either, as this is far from the truth as well. While there are no minimum level of revenue, profits or assets required to get listed on the OTC there are requirements for audited financial statements and ongoing filing and reporting to the SEC and NASD. Additionally there are several different levels of the OTC, including the OTCQX, the OTCCB and the OTC Pink, each with their own set of requirements. For more information about what it takes to be listed on OTC look here: http://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/otc-trading A company deciding to trade on the OTC is making the decision to take their company public, and they are investing to make it happen. Currently the fees to get listed on the OTC range from $30,000 to $150,000 depending on the firm you decide to go with and the services they offer as part as their package. Now, I know I wouldn't consider $30K (or more) to not be serious money! When I looked into the process of getting a company listed on the TSX the requirements seemed a lot more relaxed than those of the major U.S. markets as well, consisting of an application, records submission and then a decision made by a TSX committee about whether you get listed. More information about the TSX here: http://apps.tmx.com/en/listings/listing_with_us/process/index.html I think the way that the OTC markets have gotten such a bad reputation is from these \"\"Get Rich on Penny Stock\"\" companies that you see pumping up OTC company stocks and getting massive amounts of people to buy without doing their due diligence and investigating the company and reading its prospectus. Then when they loose a bunch of money on an ill-informed investment decision they blame it on the company being an OTC stock. Whether you decide to trade the OTC market or not, I wouldn't make a decision based on how many exchanges the company is listed on, but rather based on the research you do into the company.\""},{"docid":"52269","title":"","text":"There are business that exist by harvesting leads and selling them to other companies. These leads can be access to resumes they sell to business looking for employees; they can be eyeballs that view their adds; they can be list of people that meet a specific credit profile. All are legitimate business and many are growing businesses. But in all these cases they are upfront with the things they are doing. They all have escape mechanisms for you to either stop them from selling your info to other customers, or to restrict the ability of those customers to contact you. There are also companies that are less honest with their collecting and selling of information. They are not honest about what they are collecting, and they have no care about how others use it. There are also cases where when a company buys another company, and one main item in the transaction is the current and potential list of customers. Business with a legitimate product to sell, protect that customer list, that is the keys to the kingdom. They are the likely people who will buy the next version; they are also the ones that their competitors would love to target to convert them to another product. In some businesses, the company that develops the platform will sell to developers of add ons access to the marketplace. They may charge a flat fee for access, or charge a percentage of sales, or both. What you can do, and how you are allowed to do it, and what mechanisms are in place to protect people, are dependent on the country you operate in."},{"docid":"450184","title":"","text":"\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\""},{"docid":"179893","title":"","text":"For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales."},{"docid":"262925","title":"","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.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"127578\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"537222\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"444749\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"172840\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"499875\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"94336\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"256035\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Investors who are themselves Canadian and already hold Canadian dollars (CAD) would be more likely to purchase the TSX-listed shares that are quoted in CAD, thus avoiding the currency exchange fees that would be required to buy USD-quoted shares listed on the NYSE. Assuming Shopify is only offering a single class of shares to the public in the IPO (and Shopify's form F-1 only mentions Class A subordinate voting shares as being offered) then the shares that will trade on the TSX and NYSE will be the same class, i.e. identical. Consequently, the primary difference will be the currency in which they are quoted and trade. This adds another dimension to possible arbitrage, where not only the bare price could deviate between exchanges, but also due to currency fluctuation. An additional implication for a company to maintain such a dual listing is that they'll need to adhere to the requirements of both the TSX and NYSE. While this may have a hard cost in terms of additional filing requirements etc., in theory they will benefit from the additional liquidity provided by having the multiple listings. Canadians, in particular, are more likely to invest in a Canadian company when it has a TSX listing quoted in CAD. Also, for a company listed on both the TSX and NYSE, I would expect the TSX listing would be more likely to yield inclusion in a significant market index—say, one based on market capitalization, and thus benefit the company by having its shares purchased by index ETFs and index mutual funds that track the index. I'll also remark that this dual U.S./Canadian exchange listing is not uncommon when it comes to Canadian companies that have significant business outside of Canada.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"225877\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"505865\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Okay. They're faster than most other computers. They either have a dedicated fiber line or are physically closer. But anyways, they flood the NYSE with tons of orders to slow it down. So they see another broker's order in the line up and delete the bogus orders. They can then make the purchase faster than the other guy. The other guy now has to pay a higher strike price than he initially thought the bid would be. So let's say Apple's quote is 1.00 They send one order for apple One for IBM One for Yahoo One for NBC Comcast They see another guy wants Apple. So they cancel the orders for IBM, Yahoo and NBC Comcast and leave the Apple one to complete. The Apple one goes through and then they automatically resell it to the guy looking to buy Apple at a price of 1.0001 TLDR They flood a bunch of orders at a bunch of different prices/quantities. They cancel before it goes through unless they see someone else wants it. If that person wants it they don't cancel. edit: I don't even know if all or any of those stocks are listed on the NYSE. In today's world it doesn't make a difference anymore. However, replace NYSE with any exchange and the stock with any ticker symbol. edit 2: They could also manipulate cross listing. Listing the same stock on two different exchanges. Those prices are mostly uniform but of course higher volume on one could mean a higher price on one before they stabilize. So if you can move fast you can buy the stock at the lower price and sell it on the exchange with the higher price.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"151132\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \\\"\\\"public\\\"\\\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \\\"\\\"Bid Price\\\"\\\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \\\"\\\"Ask Price\\\"\\\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"189819\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Interest rate swaps are used to transfer risk from one party to another. They can be used to transfer many types of risk but most common are interest rate risk and exchange rate risk There are a few key concepts that I have noticed most people have trouble with which Are below: 1) The Notional amount: this is the amount that the two legs (the floating and fixed) will be based on. If you think about each leg as a loan the notional amount would be the principal, however in a swap this amount never changes hands. Rather it is just an amount used to calculate what the dollar amount exchanged should be. 2) The floating and fixed legs are the interest rates that will be exchanged. The fixed leg will always pay out the same amount no matter the changes in the market while the floating rate will change periodically depending on market conditions. As a side note it is often agreed that only the difference in the two rates will be paid rather then sending the money back and forth. 3) And finally it is important to note that at the inception of the swap the notional value will always be 0. Many people miss this but when you think about it no company would want to sign a deal the from inception puts them in a loosing position. I hope that helped without a more specific question all I can do is list random facts about swaps and hope they are useful to you.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"189851\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"All States have property tax, all States except 4 have sales tax, and business tax is federal but there are local costs of doing business such as various state required insurances and license and payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for the state etc. What I was talking about is personal income tax there are 2 kinds federal that everyone pays then all the states except those I listed take another 4 or 5% give or take which stays in the state instead of being sent off to the feeding government. From a business perspective if the going rate for paying your employees based on their role was say 100k annually. The employees take home pay would be taxed 5k in a state with income tax. That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"333755\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a \\\"\\\"Tesla Bond\\\"\\\", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders]. In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"435963\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"260023\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"248817\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"306561\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The case you are looking at is rather special, because the Chinese government for the longest time did not allow foreigners to invest in Chinese stocks. The ADRs explained in @DStanley's answer are a way around that restriction; recently there are some limited official ways, In general, it is perfectly normal for a stock to appear on different exchanges, in different currencies, and it's all the \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" stock. Because remember: a stock exchange is really nothing more than a fancy place for people to buy and sell stocks. There is absolutely no reason why a specific stock should only be traded in one place. Companies that have decided to be publically tradeable generally want to be traded in as many exchanges as possible, because it makes the stock more liquid, which helps their shareholders. Individual exchanges have different requirements for a stock to be listed for trading there, some may even do it without the company's explicit approval.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"2966\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Right. The definition of \\\"\\\"made with 100% chicken\\\"\\\" changes depending on whether that particular company sources soy protein and chicken separately and mixes them, vs purchasing it already mixed. The consumer doesn't care if this particular company is putting the chicken and the soy together, all they care about is what's in the package. That's what I mean by the fact that at some level everything with chicken is made with 100% chicken. Legally they can't say that it's made with 100% chicken unless one of the items they purchase from a supplier is just chicken, but morally, biologically, nutritionally and logically it is the same whether they put the chicken into their mixing pot or an upstream supplier does. Lets take a concrete example. This [breakfast sandwich](https://www.jimmydean.com/products/sandwiches/delights/delights-applewood-smoke-chicken-sausage-egg-whites-and-cheese-muffin-sandwiches) is \\\"\\\"made with 100% chicken.\\\"\\\" Obviously the entire food product is not chicken, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone walking down the aisle and picking it up thought, subconsciously, that the patty on it was 100% chicken. Is it actually? No. It is >98% chicken and water, and <2% other stuff. But what we are actually supposed to infer from that language is that the company who makes this sandwich purchases \\\"\\\"100%\\\"\\\" chicken, whatever that is, and mixes it with the rest of the ingredients to made something which is mostly chicken. In legal land, that is all that can be inferred from the statement. It's not exactly deceptive, but it's definitely not the clearest terminology that could be employed, and it definitely implies something that simply \\\"\\\"made with chicken\\\"\\\" does not imply. I agree with you that the package almost always has all the information I would reasonably want on it, though, and in many cases it is obvious. That same sandwich lists all of the ingredients of the patty on the back, so the information is right there if you want to go to the small text.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"272008\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \\\"\\\"whats important to me?\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\\\"\\\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"53993\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"3463\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"514500\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I do believe it comes down to listing requirements. That is getting very close to penny stock territory and typical delisting criteria. I found this answer on Ivestopedia that speaks directly the question of stock price. Another thought is that if everyone were to do it, the rules would change. The exchanges want to promote price appreciation. Otherwise, everything trades in a tight band and there is little point to the whole endeavor. Volatility is another issue that they are concerned about. At such low stock prices, small changes in stock prices are huge percentage changes. (As stated in that Ivestopedia answer, $0.10 swing in the price of a $1 stock is a 10% change.) Also, many fraudsters work in the area of penny stocks. No company wants to be associated with that.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"322778\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \">What I was talking about is personal income tax Got it, thanks for clarifying. >That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. I think cost of living would also be a factor. So I don't know that a state with income tax would automatically not make the cut, as you asserted in your first comment, because the cost of living might be cheaper and even everything out. >This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving. Agreed, there are numerous factors that Amazon will have to consider so I see no reason why a state that has an income tax should not submit an application.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"14781\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"469599\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"390779\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The assumption that companies listed OTC are not serious is far from the truth. Many companies on the OTC are just starting off there because they don't meet the requirements to be listed on the NASDAQ or NYSE. Major stock exchanges like the NASDAQ and the NYSE only want the best companies to trade on their exchanges.The NASDAQ, for example, has three sets of listing requirements. A company must meet at least one of the three requirement sets, as well as the main rules for all companies. These include: Now don't assume that the OTC doesn't have rules either, as this is far from the truth as well. While there are no minimum level of revenue, profits or assets required to get listed on the OTC there are requirements for audited financial statements and ongoing filing and reporting to the SEC and NASD. Additionally there are several different levels of the OTC, including the OTCQX, the OTCCB and the OTC Pink, each with their own set of requirements. For more information about what it takes to be listed on OTC look here: http://www.otcmarkets.com/learn/otc-trading A company deciding to trade on the OTC is making the decision to take their company public, and they are investing to make it happen. Currently the fees to get listed on the OTC range from $30,000 to $150,000 depending on the firm you decide to go with and the services they offer as part as their package. Now, I know I wouldn't consider $30K (or more) to not be serious money! When I looked into the process of getting a company listed on the TSX the requirements seemed a lot more relaxed than those of the major U.S. markets as well, consisting of an application, records submission and then a decision made by a TSX committee about whether you get listed. More information about the TSX here: http://apps.tmx.com/en/listings/listing_with_us/process/index.html I think the way that the OTC markets have gotten such a bad reputation is from these \\\"\\\"Get Rich on Penny Stock\\\"\\\" companies that you see pumping up OTC company stocks and getting massive amounts of people to buy without doing their due diligence and investigating the company and reading its prospectus. Then when they loose a bunch of money on an ill-informed investment decision they blame it on the company being an OTC stock. Whether you decide to trade the OTC market or not, I wouldn't make a decision based on how many exchanges the company is listed on, but rather based on the research you do into the company.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"52269\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"There are business that exist by harvesting leads and selling them to other companies. These leads can be access to resumes they sell to business looking for employees; they can be eyeballs that view their adds; they can be list of people that meet a specific credit profile. All are legitimate business and many are growing businesses. But in all these cases they are upfront with the things they are doing. They all have escape mechanisms for you to either stop them from selling your info to other customers, or to restrict the ability of those customers to contact you. There are also companies that are less honest with their collecting and selling of information. They are not honest about what they are collecting, and they have no care about how others use it. There are also cases where when a company buys another company, and one main item in the transaction is the current and potential list of customers. Business with a legitimate product to sell, protect that customer list, that is the keys to the kingdom. They are the likely people who will buy the next version; they are also the ones that their competitors would love to target to convert them to another product. In some businesses, the company that develops the platform will sell to developers of add ons access to the marketplace. They may charge a flat fee for access, or charge a percentage of sales, or both. What you can do, and how you are allowed to do it, and what mechanisms are in place to protect people, are dependent on the country you operate in.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"450184\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \\\"\\\"home country's\\\"\\\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \\\"\\\"pool\\\"\\\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \\\"\\\"copies\\\"\\\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"179893\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"262925\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":98,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"5142"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How do I set up my finances when first moving out?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"154714","title":"","text":"The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"154714\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"356515","title":"","text":"\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like \"\"living expenses\"\" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), \"\"food and eating out\"\" (everything you put in your mouth), \"\"savings\"\" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a \"\"miscellaneous expenses\"\" or \"\"other\"\" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact \"\"savings vehicle\"\" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (\"\"$234 rent is due the 1st of every month\"\"), and some are more difficult (\"\"the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month\"\"). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect.\""},{"docid":"577479","title":"","text":"\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \"\"sense\"\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \"\"early\"\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \"\"living at home\"\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \"\"feel\"\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\""},{"docid":"107898","title":"","text":"\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""},{"docid":"161534","title":"","text":"\"First, you've learned a very good lesson that quite a few people miss out on: notice how easy it is to get out of debt when you get a windfall of money? The trouble is that if a person doesn't have the behavior to maintain their position, they will end up in the same place. Many lottery winners end up being poor in the long run because their behavior is the problem, not their finances. If you feel that you're going to end up in debt again, this means simply that somewhere in your finances, your expenses exceed your income. Simply put, there's only two fundamental things that can be done: You can do one or the other, or both. Over budgeting, I prefer automation - automate your bills and spending by setting up a bill and spending account and when the money's gone, it's gone (you can tell yourself at that point, \"\"I have to find another source of income before I spend more\"\"). This not only helps you show where your money is going now, it also puts a constraint on your spending, which sounds like most of the problem currently. Many of my friends and I make our saved/invested money VERY HARD to access, so that we can't get it immediately (like putting it in an account that will require three or four days to get to). The purpose of this is to shape your behavior into actions of either increasing your income, decreasing your spending, or both.\""},{"docid":"367206","title":"","text":"You should ask your broker of choice for paperwork to move funds to them. You can't move into an account that doesn't exist, so when I wanted to move my money from an old pension plan to an IRA I set up the IRA with the broker first. When I told them it was to receive this money, they weren't asking for any initial deposit. You then have a broker and account number to give the old company to set up the move."},{"docid":"170871","title":"","text":"\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \"\"spending money\"\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \"\"an amount\"\" and this should be split equally.\""},{"docid":"115055","title":"","text":"Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)"},{"docid":"168983","title":"","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.\""},{"docid":"558069","title":"","text":"\"Wow, first off, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to type up that massive response. While I wasn't exactly asking for someone to \"\"LoLZ write my paper for me!\"\" I was hoping to get a better understanding of the economics segment for Dell. My understanding of the finance/economics is very mediocre, and was trying to figure out just how the current state of the economy was impacting Dell. I have definitely written up a lot about \"\"The Cloud\"\" as well as moving away from desktop machines. While I am in the IT industry, it definitely doesn't stimulate my economic knowledge :)\""},{"docid":"332229","title":"","text":"Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses. Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office. If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&A activity, which is the real cool shit. That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?"},{"docid":"89233","title":"","text":"In the broadest strokes: *Strategy* is about decision making *Finance* is about the management of money *Business Development* is about identifying and developing opportunities There's a lot of interplay between all aspects of business, so it's going to sound like a lot of them beget the other, or are interchangeable: because you can't make decisions without knowing your capital situation and how the decision will affect your cashflows, and you wouldn't have a decision to make without an opportunity being identified, and you wouldn't know how valuable an opportunity is unless you knew how it would impact your cashflows. This is also why the higher in the corporate ladder you go, the more meetings you'll be in, because it's a coordinated dance between every department and none of them act in a vacuum. If you got an MBA concentrating in Strategy, your most prominent opportunities straight out of school are going to be in consulting where you would help businesses make decisions on moving forward. Strategic roles within a fortune 500 company are likely going to be filled with senior employees; with opportunities after a few years in consulting to transition into a management role within a corporate setting. None of it is set in stone though. If you got an MBA concentrating in Finance (what I did), your most prominent opportunities will be in corporate finance and financial services. Corporate finance jobs center largely on capital budgeting and working capital management. Capital budgeting is assessing how valuable potential investment projects are, and prioritizing what should be funded and how. Working capital management is making sure you don't run out of cash (more complicated than it sounds). You can look on payscale.com to see what common career paths for any of the entry jobs look like. A financial analyst becomes a senior analyst after a few years, and then moves into finance management positions, then up to director/VP, CFO. A management consultant would become a project manager, move into operations management, director/VP, C-suite."},{"docid":"351340","title":"","text":"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions."},{"docid":"386720","title":"","text":"You remind me a lot of myself as I was thinking about marriage. Luckily for me, my wife was much smarter about all this than I was. Hopefully, I can pass along some of her wisdom. Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. In marriage, there is no more financial independence. Do not think in those terms. Life can throw so many curve balls that you will regret it. Imagine sitting down with your new bride and running through the math. She is to contribute $X to the family each month and you are to contribute $Y. Then next thing you know, 6 months later, she has cancer and has to undergo expensive and debilitating treatment. There is no way she can contribute her $X anymore. You tell her that is okay and that you understand, but the pressure weighs down on her every day because she feels like she is not meeting your expectations. Or alternatively, everything goes great with your $X, $Y plan. A few years down the road your wife is pregnant, so you revisit the plan, readjust, etc. Everything seems great. When your child is born, however, the baby has a severe physical or mental handicap. You and your wife decide that she will quit her job to raise your beautiful child. But, the whole time, in the back of her mind she can't get out of her head that she is no longer financially independent and not living up to your expectations. These stresses are not what you want in your marriage. Here is what we do in my family. Hopefully, some of this will be helpful to you. Every year my wife and I sit down and determine what our financial goals are for the year. How much do we want to be putting in retirement? How much do we want to give to charity? Do we want to take any family vacations? We set goals together on what we want to achieve with our money. There is no my money or her money, just ours. Doesn't matter where it comes from. At the beginning of every month, we create a budget in a spreadsheet. It has categories like (food, mortgage or rent, transportation, clothing, utilities) and we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. It also has categories for entertainment, retirement, charity, cell phones, internet, and so on. Again, we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. In the spreadsheet, we also track how much income we expect that month and our totals (income minus expenses). If that value is positive, we determine what to do with the remainder. Maybe we save some for a rainy day or for car repairs. Maybe we treat ourselves to an extra fancy dinner. The point is, every dollar should be accounted for. If she wants to go to dinner with some friends, we put that in the budget. If I want a new video game, we put that in the budget. Once a week, we take all our receipts and tally up where we spent our money. We then see how we are doing on our budget. Maybe we were a little high in one category and lower than expected in another. We adjust. We are flexible. But, we go over our finances often to make sure we are achieving our goals. Some specific goals I'd recommend that the two of you consider in your first such yearly meeting: You get out of life what you put into it, and you will get out of your finances what the two of you put into them. By being on the same page, your marriage will be much happier. Money/finances are one of the top causes of divorce. If you two are working together on this, you are much more likely to succeed."},{"docid":"396222","title":"","text":"The key to understanding where your money is going is to budget. Rather than tracking your spending after the fact, budgeting lets you decide up front what you want to spend your money on. This can be done with cash envelopes, on paper, or on Excel spreadsheets; however, in my opinion, the best, most flexible, and easiest way to do this is with budgeting software designed for this purpose. As I explained in another answer, when it comes to personal budgeting software, there are two different approaches: those in which you decide what to spend your money on before it is spent, and those that simply show you how your money was spent after it is gone. I recommend the first approach. Software designed to do this include YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar. My personal favorite is YNAB. You'll find lots of help, video tutorials, and even online classes with a live teacher on YNAB's website. Using one of these packages will help you manage spending, whether it is done electronically or with cash. When you pay for something with a credit card, you enter your purchase into the software, and the software adjusts your budget as if the money is already spent, even if you haven't technically paid for the purchase yet. As far as strategy goes, here is what I recommend: Get started on one of these, and set up your budget right away. Assign a category to every dollar in your account. Don't worry if it is not perfect. If you find later on that you don't have enough money in one of your categories, you can move money from another category if you need to. As you work with it, you'll get better at knowing how much money you need in each category. My other recommendation is this: Don't wait until the end of the month to download your transactions from the bank and fit everything into categories. Instead, enter your spending transactions into the software manually, every day, as you spend. This will do two things: first, you'll have the latest, up-to-date picture of where your accounts are in your software without having to guess. Second, it will help you stay on top of your spending. You'll be able to see early on if you are overspending in a particular category. YNAB has a mobile app that I use quite a bit, but if I don't get a chance to enter a purchase right when I spend it, I make sure to keep a receipt, and enter the transaction in that evening. It only takes a couple of minutes a day, and I always know how I stand financially."},{"docid":"464619","title":"","text":"\"I started a business a few years ago. At one point it wasn't going so well and my father \"\"loaned\"\" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship. Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments... Unfortunately thoughts like \"\"he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away\"\" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals. We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to. Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around. Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on. When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine. This \"\"cleared the air\"\" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc. Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children. Although I went about it an entirely different way. Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them. We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed. Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse... Given the current state of things I consider it money well \"\"spent\"\".\""},{"docid":"146926","title":"","text":"\"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started. Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up. That's what we call the physical probability. It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes. For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15. It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium. When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities. That is, we can create a new set up \"\"probabilities\"\" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes. This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.). We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities. When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know.\""},{"docid":"105444","title":"","text":"Not sure how Technology Mgmt differs from IS but I would limit your options to be Finance, Accounting, TM/IS. Technology is only going up and people are always going to have problems with it so no problems. Every larger company has an IT department that handles issues from looking for new technology or an IT Service Desk where you answer calls from someone having an issue with their computer. From what I hear from colleagues is experience is huge here. From an IT perspective I think this major would have the highest probability of landing a job. Accounting and Finance is different. If you go down one of those paths, to be the most successful you'll have to take supplement courses to get either a CPA or CFA. Also working in the big accounting firms from what I've seen is super stressful based on when their clients close their books each quarter but is very rewarding. To move up in Accounting you'd want to get the CPA. If you don't have it, you'll plateau at some point and won't get any higher without it really. I chose finance, but did not want to be a financial advisor. I did not like the idea of retaining clients by refers or cold calling. Essentially if you remember the scene on Wolf of Wall Street where Leo gets the little job and makes a huge sale off a cold call, that's what it is like when you first start out. You are pressured to sell insurance and stocks to your friends and family in hope that they refer you to their friends and family...it works for some people and it doesn't for others. Down this path you'd also possibly take the CFA tests and for sure series 6, 66, 7. Currently I'm not doing anything finance related but it is a great background for your personal finances and what not. I would say you want to choose soon though so you can work on getting internships. Internships are huge as it will be a professional reference and if you do well in the position that company could hire you on once you graduate. Hope this helped. TLDR: Get an internship and experience the job."},{"docid":"418516","title":"","text":"\"I am trying to set up a formula that will find interest-rate behind first pencil sheets at car dealerships. I am not a car finance expert so I need someone who is intimate with how these loans really work. The points of data I get at first pencil are: 1) Amount Financed 2) Period 3) Monthly Payment The data I need to extrapolate: 1) Rate in percentile so that I can compare to my bank's offer. I have tried this and many other stock \"\"find rate\"\" formulas with no accurate results: R=(A/P^(1/n)-1)n\""},{"docid":"594531","title":"","text":"\"I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally. (Mostly to limit liability.) There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.) The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially. We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked \"\"Is there any chance you might move the business? Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces? What about next year? Five years?\"\" If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch. In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.\""},{"docid":"152041","title":"","text":"Haha, I bet. I think sometimes people in upper echelons of their fields assume they can understand others just as well while forgetting that the whole base layer of fundamentals that took to get there. Definitely a human problem, as we all tend to fall into that trap on occasion. I'm a CPA so I have no intention doing the CFA, which came with its own set of misery. I just follow finance as a side interest. I definitely fall on the side of conservative when it comes to investing. When I see Tesla, red flags go up. It might pay off later, but it's not for me. I actually just switched industries myself, went from a manufacturing environment to a client based one focused on start ups. In another year or so I'll move on to another industry to plug in more gaps in my knowledge base. Depends on where the economy is at that point."},{"docid":"347849","title":"","text":"First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing."},{"docid":"125230","title":"","text":"It will depend largely on your broker what type of stop and trailing stop orders they provide. Saying that, I have not come across any brokers yet that offer limit orders with trailing stop orders. Unlike a standard stop order where you can either make it a market stop order or a limit stop order, usually most brokers have trailing stop orders as market orders only, where you can either set the trailing stop to be a dollar value or percentage from the most recent high. Remember also, that trailing stop orders will be based on the intra-day highs and not the highest closing price. That means that if the share price spikes up during the day your trailing stop will move up, and if the price then spikes down you may be stopped out prematurely, after which the price might rally again. For this reason I try to base my trailing stops on the highest closing price by using standard stop loss orders and moving it up manually after the close of trade if the share price has closed at a new high. This takes a few minutes each evening (depending on how many stocks you have to check and adjust the stops for) but gives you more control. Using this method will also enable you to set limit orders attached to your stop loss triggers, and you won't have to keep your trailing too close to the last high price thus potentially causing you to get stopped out prematurely. Slightly off track but may be handy if you set profit targets, my broker has recently introduced Trailing Take Profit Orders. The way it works is, say you have a profit target of 50%, so you buy at $2 and want to take profits if the price reaches $3, you could set your Trailing Take Profit Trigger at say $3.10 or above and set a Trail by Amount of say $0.10. So if the price after hitting $3.10 falls to $3.00 you will be stopped out and collect your profits. If the price moves up to $3.30 and then falls to $3.20, you will be stopped out at $3.20 and make some extra profits. If the price continues going up the Trailing Take Profit will continue to move up always $0.10 below the highest price reached. I think this would be a very useful order if you were range trading where you could set the Trailing Take Profit trigger near recent resistance so you can get out if prices start reversing at or around the resistance, but continue profiting if the price breaks through the resistance."},{"docid":"157630","title":"","text":"You lose your agent services. When my wife wrecked our car 3 years ago our agent took care of everything. He got us a rental car, made the arrangements to get it fixed, checked in to see how we were doing, and even helped us set up a second opinion on my wifes wrist surgery. The accident was ruled the fault of the uninsured driver who decided to take off through the red light. But our insurance was the one that covered it all total expenses over 80k. We would have had to eat most of those with out full coverage. Most everything was set up (our rental car, estimates on repair, even her inital consutation with the surgeon) before the investigator had filed her report. Our agents first question was is everyone ok. His second was what can i do to help? He never asked us what happened and was always ahead of our needs in dealing with it. If these things are not important to you, you can probably save quite a bit of money self insuring. But if you are in an accident and unable to do them yourself, do you have someone to do it for you? Do you trust them to handle your business and are you willing to saddle them with the responsibility of dealing with it? To me insurance is less about me and more about my family. It was nice that my agent did all of that for me. I would have been willing to do it myself though. But I am glad to know he is there for my wife if something happens to me."},{"docid":"307131","title":"","text":"Yes, of course it is. Car dealers are motivated to write loans even more than selling cars at times. When I bought a new car for the first time in my life, in my 40's, it took longer to get the finance guy out of my face than to negotiate and buy the car. The car dealer selling you the used car would be happy to package the financing into the selling price. Similar to how 'points' are used to adjust the actual cost of a mortgage, the dealer can tinker with the price up front knowing that you want to stretch the payment out a bit. To littleadv's point, 3 months isn't long, I think a used car dealer wold be happy to work with you."},{"docid":"223645","title":"","text":"\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \"\"paychecks\"\" I had ever received.\""},{"docid":"88095","title":"","text":"\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \"\"Pay yourself first\"\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \"\"fun money\"\" or \"\"new home fund\"\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \"\"paying yourself first\"\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \"\"mandatory\"\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\""},{"docid":"38016","title":"","text":"\"I would not concede your money to your dad IF he is really wronging you - and we need much more detail to tell. This is the first lesson in life that actually following up on \"\"wrong\"\" things will save you thousands of dollars throughout your adulthood. It is really easy to turn the other way and be out a few thousand dollars. Then the hospital overbills you and you let it go and so on. Follow up, it is your money. The laws behind this are pretty cut and dry. Basically if you put money into one account and only your money was touching the account then it is your money. As a minor this is an expectation and once your turn 18 in the US you have a right to your money. That is given that the money was in the account at 18. So if your dad truly did not touch the account and withdraw the money before you turned 18, it is cut and dry. If your dad took money out before 18 or added his own money to the account it gets rather fuzzy since it is easy for dad to say that I took money out for your expenses. As for this being \"\"nuclear\"\" as keshlam suggests - he is right. His advice is fine but sets you up for people taking advantage of your throughout your life, especially your family. In fact the situation is already nuclear but you were the only thing the bomb hit. So talk to your dad. Explain that you will have to go and file a small claims trial if he does not agree to give you the money. If your situation is already over the top I would bring the paperwork with you filled out. (a person at your local clerk's office will help you find the right forms) You on the other hand better weigh this conversation. We \"\"internet peoples\"\" are only hearing one side of the story. We do not understand your situation at your home. We don't understand who pays for your car, gas, clothes, and room and board. You are 18, so there is no obligation for parents to pay for these things. If I had an 18 year old that had 3K in the bank under my name and they hadn't helped around the house in a year, didn't buy their car, had a poor attitude, and so on I would probably have the same action as your dad. Yea it's \"\"your money\"\" but is it really? When I was 18 I bought ALL my clothes, bought my car, bought my gas/insurance, and so on. I paid for my toothpaste. If this is where you are at and you help out around the house like an adult would then you have solid ground to stand on. If not... I would laugh if I were your dad. My first thought would be you want your money, that is fine. But you are paying rent. Car is gone, get your own. You would be paying for everything. But you would have \"\"your money\"\". So you have some pros and cons to weigh here and taking the money could cost you a TON of money in the future. However if your dad is just being a pure jerk (I kind of doubt this but who knows) then you have an obligation to fight for what is yours. (Note that the end goal of any meeting like this in your life shouldn't be court. It should be an agreement so that the right action is taken and both parties are happy. It could be very well that your dad would be happy with something that has nothing to do with the money. Also there are people with really really bad situations at their homes. A controlling parent is a pretty good \"\"bad\"\" situation and an easy one to solve at 18 - move out. If you don't want to move out then accept your family members, not complain about them. No matter how controlling your dad is your question spews of ungrateful teenager. I am sure you aren't that bad and I am sure your dad isn't that bad.) (And another note: In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting you drop the money issue. There is nothing worse than not talking about it even if you think your dad will kick you out of the house. Resentment building up in yourself or family is the worst possible thing. This needs to be dealt with.)\""},{"docid":"106249","title":"","text":"For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests."},{"docid":"218153","title":"","text":"I am able to set this up for my tenants by providing them with a form to fill out so that they provide their name and bank account information, and then I gave that to my bank and they establish a recurring ACH transfer. This way the tenant never gets my bank information. One note about this, I had a tenant break her lease and move out. She notified me a couple of days before the first of the month, and by the time she had moved a few days later the rent had been automatically paid. She called her bank and asked them to reverse the most recent transaction so she could have that month's rent refunded, and much to my surprise, they did. So the financial transfer is not necessarily one-way. This is in the US."},{"docid":"316980","title":"","text":"\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \"\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\"\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\""}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"356515\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like \\\"\\\"living expenses\\\"\\\" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), \\\"\\\"food and eating out\\\"\\\" (everything you put in your mouth), \\\"\\\"savings\\\"\\\" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a \\\"\\\"miscellaneous expenses\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"other\\\"\\\" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the \\\"\\\"pay yourself first\\\"\\\" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact \\\"\\\"savings vehicle\\\"\\\" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (\\\"\\\"$234 rent is due the 1st of every month\\\"\\\"), and some are more difficult (\\\"\\\"the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month\\\"\\\"). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"577479\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I recently moved out from my parents place, after having built up sufficient funds, and gone through these questions myself. I live near Louisville, KY which has a significant effect on my income, cost of living, and cost of housing. Factor that into your decisions. To answer your questions in order: When do I know that I'm financially stable to move out? When you have enough money set aside for all projected expenses for 3-6 months and an emergency fund of 4-10K, depending on how large a safety net you want or need. Note that part of the reason for the emergency fund is as a buffer for the things you won't realize you need until you move out, such as pots or chairs. It also covers things being more expensive than anticipated. Should I wait until both my emergency fund is at least 6 months of pay and my loans in my parents' names is paid off (to free up money)? 6 months of pay is not a good measuring stick. Use months of expenses instead. In general, student loans are a small enough cost per month that you just need to factor them into your costs. When should I factor in the newer car investment? How much should I have set aside for the car? Do the car while you are living at home. This allows you to put more than the minimum payment down each month, and you can get ahead. That looks good on your credit, and allows refinancing later for a lower minimum payment when you move out. Finally, it gives you a \\\"\\\"sense\\\"\\\" of the monthly cost while you still have leeway to adjust things. Depending on new/used status of the car, set aside around 3-5K for a down payment. That gives you a decent rate, without too much haggling trouble. Should I get an apartment for a couple years before looking for my own house? Not unless you want the flexibility of an apartment. In general, living at home is cheaper. If you intend to eventually buy property in the same area, an apartment is throwing money away. If you want to move every few years, an apartment can, depending on the lease, give you that. How much should I set aside for either investment (apartment vs house)? 10-20K for a down payment, if you live around Louisville, KY. Be very choosy about the price of your house and this gives you the best of everything. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to get into a place too \\\"\\\"early\\\"\\\". Banks pay attention to the down payment for a good reason. It indicates commitment, care, and an ability to go the distance. In general, a mortgage is 30 years. You won't pay it off for a long time, so plan for that. Is there anything else I should be doing/taking advantage of with my money during this \\\"\\\"living at home\\\"\\\" period before I finally leave the nest? If there is something you want, now's the time to get it. You can make snap purchases on furniture/motorcycles/games and not hurt yourself. Take vacations, since there is room in the budget. If you've thought about moving to a different state for work, travel there for a weekend/week and see if you even like the place. Look for deals on things you'll need when you move out. Utensils, towels, brooms, furniture, and so forth can be bought cheaply, and you can get quality, but it takes time to find these deals. Pick up activities with monthly expenses. Boxing, dancing, gym memberships, hackerspaces and so forth become much more difficult to fit into the budget later. They also give you a better credit rating for a recurring expense, and allow you to get a \\\"\\\"feel\\\"\\\" for how things like a monthly utility bill will work. Finally, get involved in various investments. A 401k is only the start, so look at penny stocks, indexed funds, ETFs or other things to diversify with. Check out local businesses, or start something on the side. Experiment, and have fun.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"107898\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \\\"\\\"good will\\\"\\\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \\\"\\\"sweet spot\\\"\\\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"161534\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"First, you've learned a very good lesson that quite a few people miss out on: notice how easy it is to get out of debt when you get a windfall of money? The trouble is that if a person doesn't have the behavior to maintain their position, they will end up in the same place. Many lottery winners end up being poor in the long run because their behavior is the problem, not their finances. If you feel that you're going to end up in debt again, this means simply that somewhere in your finances, your expenses exceed your income. Simply put, there's only two fundamental things that can be done: You can do one or the other, or both. Over budgeting, I prefer automation - automate your bills and spending by setting up a bill and spending account and when the money's gone, it's gone (you can tell yourself at that point, \\\"\\\"I have to find another source of income before I spend more\\\"\\\"). This not only helps you show where your money is going now, it also puts a constraint on your spending, which sounds like most of the problem currently. Many of my friends and I make our saved/invested money VERY HARD to access, so that we can't get it immediately (like putting it in an account that will require three or four days to get to). The purpose of this is to shape your behavior into actions of either increasing your income, decreasing your spending, or both.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"367206\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You should ask your broker of choice for paperwork to move funds to them. You can't move into an account that doesn't exist, so when I wanted to move my money from an old pension plan to an IRA I set up the IRA with the broker first. When I told them it was to receive this money, they weren't asking for any initial deposit. You then have a broker and account number to give the old company to set up the move.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"170871\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"My own personal point of view. I earn about twice what my wife to be earns. We are planning on getting married next year. I ultimately do all the finances (basically because she hates that kind of thing) not because I'm in charge or whatever. To work out how we do this I wrote a spreadsheet: At the top it has my monthly pay in one column and her's in another. I add all our bills (against me initally). At the bottom I have a total of both of our \\\"\\\"spending money\\\"\\\". Spending money is wage - bills - savings I then move money out of my column into her column. My goal is that we pay all the bills and save a decent amount and have roughly the same amount to spend each month. So each persons spending money should be roughly equal. I then fine tune this as things change (if we get a pay rise we alter it, if a bill goes up or down we alter it) To manage this we have 4 accounts, a joint account to pay bills (both give a set amount to each mont), a savings acount (both give a set amount to each month) and our own accounts (where we get paid and where our spending money lives). Like everyone else says, this seems fair to me. I don't earn more, we both earn \\\"\\\"an amount\\\"\\\" and this should be split equally.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"115055\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"168983\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"558069\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Wow, first off, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to type up that massive response. While I wasn't exactly asking for someone to \\\"\\\"LoLZ write my paper for me!\\\"\\\" I was hoping to get a better understanding of the economics segment for Dell. My understanding of the finance/economics is very mediocre, and was trying to figure out just how the current state of the economy was impacting Dell. I have definitely written up a lot about \\\"\\\"The Cloud\\\"\\\" as well as moving away from desktop machines. While I am in the IT industry, it definitely doesn't stimulate my economic knowledge :)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"332229\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Hey. Currently in treasury. It's good in some ways and bad in others. Every role has it's pluses and minuses. Some basic thoughts are that you get to see a lot of the company. You get a cursory view of what everyone is doing, all the time, but you don't really ever get in depth views of any one area. It's a role that makes it easy to jump around industries because every large company has a treasury department, but it limits the size of the company you can join because a lot of small companies won't have one or will just have a cash person and not an actual department. You get to look at bond and commercial paper markets, if that's interesting to you. You get a lot of interaction with higher ups because cash is hugely important. You're the first to know if the company is gonna go bankrupt. It's a good place to learn the business if you end up wanting to move, but it's a pretty specific skill set and carries a decent amount of responsibility. It's one of the only corporate finance roles that's closer to front office than mid or back office. If you are just joining corporate treasury, you'll probably start out doing cash management and forecasting, maybe doing short term liquidity and investment activity. After that, you would move into bond stuff, pensions/401k management, corporate finance stuff as opposed to the cash desk. After that, you'd probably get to be involved in stuff like long term planning and M&A activity, which is the real cool shit. That's what came off the top of my head. Do you have any specific questions?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"89233\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In the broadest strokes: *Strategy* is about decision making *Finance* is about the management of money *Business Development* is about identifying and developing opportunities There's a lot of interplay between all aspects of business, so it's going to sound like a lot of them beget the other, or are interchangeable: because you can't make decisions without knowing your capital situation and how the decision will affect your cashflows, and you wouldn't have a decision to make without an opportunity being identified, and you wouldn't know how valuable an opportunity is unless you knew how it would impact your cashflows. This is also why the higher in the corporate ladder you go, the more meetings you'll be in, because it's a coordinated dance between every department and none of them act in a vacuum. If you got an MBA concentrating in Strategy, your most prominent opportunities straight out of school are going to be in consulting where you would help businesses make decisions on moving forward. Strategic roles within a fortune 500 company are likely going to be filled with senior employees; with opportunities after a few years in consulting to transition into a management role within a corporate setting. None of it is set in stone though. If you got an MBA concentrating in Finance (what I did), your most prominent opportunities will be in corporate finance and financial services. Corporate finance jobs center largely on capital budgeting and working capital management. Capital budgeting is assessing how valuable potential investment projects are, and prioritizing what should be funded and how. Working capital management is making sure you don't run out of cash (more complicated than it sounds). You can look on payscale.com to see what common career paths for any of the entry jobs look like. A financial analyst becomes a senior analyst after a few years, and then moves into finance management positions, then up to director/VP, CFO. A management consultant would become a project manager, move into operations management, director/VP, C-suite.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"351340\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"386720\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You remind me a lot of myself as I was thinking about marriage. Luckily for me, my wife was much smarter about all this than I was. Hopefully, I can pass along some of her wisdom. Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. In marriage, there is no more financial independence. Do not think in those terms. Life can throw so many curve balls that you will regret it. Imagine sitting down with your new bride and running through the math. She is to contribute $X to the family each month and you are to contribute $Y. Then next thing you know, 6 months later, she has cancer and has to undergo expensive and debilitating treatment. There is no way she can contribute her $X anymore. You tell her that is okay and that you understand, but the pressure weighs down on her every day because she feels like she is not meeting your expectations. Or alternatively, everything goes great with your $X, $Y plan. A few years down the road your wife is pregnant, so you revisit the plan, readjust, etc. Everything seems great. When your child is born, however, the baby has a severe physical or mental handicap. You and your wife decide that she will quit her job to raise your beautiful child. But, the whole time, in the back of her mind she can't get out of her head that she is no longer financially independent and not living up to your expectations. These stresses are not what you want in your marriage. Here is what we do in my family. Hopefully, some of this will be helpful to you. Every year my wife and I sit down and determine what our financial goals are for the year. How much do we want to be putting in retirement? How much do we want to give to charity? Do we want to take any family vacations? We set goals together on what we want to achieve with our money. There is no my money or her money, just ours. Doesn't matter where it comes from. At the beginning of every month, we create a budget in a spreadsheet. It has categories like (food, mortgage or rent, transportation, clothing, utilities) and we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. It also has categories for entertainment, retirement, charity, cell phones, internet, and so on. Again, we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. In the spreadsheet, we also track how much income we expect that month and our totals (income minus expenses). If that value is positive, we determine what to do with the remainder. Maybe we save some for a rainy day or for car repairs. Maybe we treat ourselves to an extra fancy dinner. The point is, every dollar should be accounted for. If she wants to go to dinner with some friends, we put that in the budget. If I want a new video game, we put that in the budget. Once a week, we take all our receipts and tally up where we spent our money. We then see how we are doing on our budget. Maybe we were a little high in one category and lower than expected in another. We adjust. We are flexible. But, we go over our finances often to make sure we are achieving our goals. Some specific goals I'd recommend that the two of you consider in your first such yearly meeting: You get out of life what you put into it, and you will get out of your finances what the two of you put into them. By being on the same page, your marriage will be much happier. Money/finances are one of the top causes of divorce. If you two are working together on this, you are much more likely to succeed.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"396222\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The key to understanding where your money is going is to budget. Rather than tracking your spending after the fact, budgeting lets you decide up front what you want to spend your money on. This can be done with cash envelopes, on paper, or on Excel spreadsheets; however, in my opinion, the best, most flexible, and easiest way to do this is with budgeting software designed for this purpose. As I explained in another answer, when it comes to personal budgeting software, there are two different approaches: those in which you decide what to spend your money on before it is spent, and those that simply show you how your money was spent after it is gone. I recommend the first approach. Software designed to do this include YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar. My personal favorite is YNAB. You'll find lots of help, video tutorials, and even online classes with a live teacher on YNAB's website. Using one of these packages will help you manage spending, whether it is done electronically or with cash. When you pay for something with a credit card, you enter your purchase into the software, and the software adjusts your budget as if the money is already spent, even if you haven't technically paid for the purchase yet. As far as strategy goes, here is what I recommend: Get started on one of these, and set up your budget right away. Assign a category to every dollar in your account. Don't worry if it is not perfect. If you find later on that you don't have enough money in one of your categories, you can move money from another category if you need to. As you work with it, you'll get better at knowing how much money you need in each category. My other recommendation is this: Don't wait until the end of the month to download your transactions from the bank and fit everything into categories. Instead, enter your spending transactions into the software manually, every day, as you spend. This will do two things: first, you'll have the latest, up-to-date picture of where your accounts are in your software without having to guess. Second, it will help you stay on top of your spending. You'll be able to see early on if you are overspending in a particular category. YNAB has a mobile app that I use quite a bit, but if I don't get a chance to enter a purchase right when I spend it, I make sure to keep a receipt, and enter the transaction in that evening. It only takes a couple of minutes a day, and I always know how I stand financially.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"464619\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I started a business a few years ago. At one point it wasn't going so well and my father \\\"\\\"loaned\\\"\\\" me an amount not too dissimilar to what you've done. From a personal perspective, the moment I took that loan there was a strain the relationship. Especially when I was sometimes late on the interest payments... Unfortunately thoughts like \\\"\\\"he doesn't need this right now, but if I don't pay the car loan then that is taken away\\\"\\\" came up a few times and paying the interest fell to the bottom of the monthly bill payment stack. At some point my wife and I finally took a hard look at my finances and goals. We got rid of things that simply weren't necessary (car payment, cable tv, etc) and focused on the things we needed to. Doing the same with the business helped out as well, as it helped focus me to to turn things around. Things are now going great. That said, two of my siblings ran into their own financial trouble that our parents helped them on. When this happened my father called us together and basically forgave everyone's debt by an equal amount which covered everything plus wrote a check to the one that was doing fine. This \\\"\\\"cleared the air\\\"\\\" with regards to future inheritance, questions about how much one sibling was being helped vs another, etc. Honestly, it made family gatherings more enjoyable as all that underlying tension was now gone. I've since helped one of my children. Although I went about it an entirely different way. Rather than loan them money, I gave it to them. We also had a few discussions on how I think they ought to manage their finances and a set of goals to work towards which we co-developed. Bearing in mind that they are an individual and sometimes you can lead a horse... Given the current state of things I consider it money well \\\"\\\"spent\\\"\\\".\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"146926\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started. Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up. That's what we call the physical probability. It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes. For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15. It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium. When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities. That is, we can create a new set up \\\"\\\"probabilities\\\"\\\" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes. This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.). We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities. When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"105444\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Not sure how Technology Mgmt differs from IS but I would limit your options to be Finance, Accounting, TM/IS. Technology is only going up and people are always going to have problems with it so no problems. Every larger company has an IT department that handles issues from looking for new technology or an IT Service Desk where you answer calls from someone having an issue with their computer. From what I hear from colleagues is experience is huge here. From an IT perspective I think this major would have the highest probability of landing a job. Accounting and Finance is different. If you go down one of those paths, to be the most successful you'll have to take supplement courses to get either a CPA or CFA. Also working in the big accounting firms from what I've seen is super stressful based on when their clients close their books each quarter but is very rewarding. To move up in Accounting you'd want to get the CPA. If you don't have it, you'll plateau at some point and won't get any higher without it really. I chose finance, but did not want to be a financial advisor. I did not like the idea of retaining clients by refers or cold calling. Essentially if you remember the scene on Wolf of Wall Street where Leo gets the little job and makes a huge sale off a cold call, that's what it is like when you first start out. You are pressured to sell insurance and stocks to your friends and family in hope that they refer you to their friends and family...it works for some people and it doesn't for others. Down this path you'd also possibly take the CFA tests and for sure series 6, 66, 7. Currently I'm not doing anything finance related but it is a great background for your personal finances and what not. I would say you want to choose soon though so you can work on getting internships. Internships are huge as it will be a professional reference and if you do well in the position that company could hire you on once you graduate. Hope this helped. TLDR: Get an internship and experience the job.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"418516\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I am trying to set up a formula that will find interest-rate behind first pencil sheets at car dealerships. I am not a car finance expert so I need someone who is intimate with how these loans really work. The points of data I get at first pencil are: 1) Amount Financed 2) Period 3) Monthly Payment The data I need to extrapolate: 1) Rate in percentile so that I can compare to my bank's offer. I have tried this and many other stock \\\"\\\"find rate\\\"\\\" formulas with no accurate results: R=(A/P^(1/n)-1)n\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"594531\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally. (Mostly to limit liability.) There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.) The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially. We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked \\\"\\\"Is there any chance you might move the business? Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces? What about next year? Five years?\\\"\\\" If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch. In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"152041\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Haha, I bet. I think sometimes people in upper echelons of their fields assume they can understand others just as well while forgetting that the whole base layer of fundamentals that took to get there. Definitely a human problem, as we all tend to fall into that trap on occasion. I'm a CPA so I have no intention doing the CFA, which came with its own set of misery. I just follow finance as a side interest. I definitely fall on the side of conservative when it comes to investing. When I see Tesla, red flags go up. It might pay off later, but it's not for me. I actually just switched industries myself, went from a manufacturing environment to a client based one focused on start ups. In another year or so I'll move on to another industry to plug in more gaps in my knowledge base. Depends on where the economy is at that point.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"347849\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"125230\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"It will depend largely on your broker what type of stop and trailing stop orders they provide. Saying that, I have not come across any brokers yet that offer limit orders with trailing stop orders. Unlike a standard stop order where you can either make it a market stop order or a limit stop order, usually most brokers have trailing stop orders as market orders only, where you can either set the trailing stop to be a dollar value or percentage from the most recent high. Remember also, that trailing stop orders will be based on the intra-day highs and not the highest closing price. That means that if the share price spikes up during the day your trailing stop will move up, and if the price then spikes down you may be stopped out prematurely, after which the price might rally again. For this reason I try to base my trailing stops on the highest closing price by using standard stop loss orders and moving it up manually after the close of trade if the share price has closed at a new high. This takes a few minutes each evening (depending on how many stocks you have to check and adjust the stops for) but gives you more control. Using this method will also enable you to set limit orders attached to your stop loss triggers, and you won't have to keep your trailing too close to the last high price thus potentially causing you to get stopped out prematurely. Slightly off track but may be handy if you set profit targets, my broker has recently introduced Trailing Take Profit Orders. The way it works is, say you have a profit target of 50%, so you buy at $2 and want to take profits if the price reaches $3, you could set your Trailing Take Profit Trigger at say $3.10 or above and set a Trail by Amount of say $0.10. So if the price after hitting $3.10 falls to $3.00 you will be stopped out and collect your profits. If the price moves up to $3.30 and then falls to $3.20, you will be stopped out at $3.20 and make some extra profits. If the price continues going up the Trailing Take Profit will continue to move up always $0.10 below the highest price reached. I think this would be a very useful order if you were range trading where you could set the Trailing Take Profit trigger near recent resistance so you can get out if prices start reversing at or around the resistance, but continue profiting if the price breaks through the resistance.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"157630\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You lose your agent services. When my wife wrecked our car 3 years ago our agent took care of everything. He got us a rental car, made the arrangements to get it fixed, checked in to see how we were doing, and even helped us set up a second opinion on my wifes wrist surgery. The accident was ruled the fault of the uninsured driver who decided to take off through the red light. But our insurance was the one that covered it all total expenses over 80k. We would have had to eat most of those with out full coverage. Most everything was set up (our rental car, estimates on repair, even her inital consutation with the surgeon) before the investigator had filed her report. Our agents first question was is everyone ok. His second was what can i do to help? He never asked us what happened and was always ahead of our needs in dealing with it. If these things are not important to you, you can probably save quite a bit of money self insuring. But if you are in an accident and unable to do them yourself, do you have someone to do it for you? Do you trust them to handle your business and are you willing to saddle them with the responsibility of dealing with it? To me insurance is less about me and more about my family. It was nice that my agent did all of that for me. I would have been willing to do it myself though. But I am glad to know he is there for my wife if something happens to me.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"307131\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Yes, of course it is. Car dealers are motivated to write loans even more than selling cars at times. When I bought a new car for the first time in my life, in my 40's, it took longer to get the finance guy out of my face than to negotiate and buy the car. The car dealer selling you the used car would be happy to package the financing into the selling price. Similar to how 'points' are used to adjust the actual cost of a mortgage, the dealer can tinker with the price up front knowing that you want to stretch the payment out a bit. To littleadv's point, 3 months isn't long, I think a used car dealer wold be happy to work with you.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"223645\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \\\"\\\"paychecks\\\"\\\" I had ever received.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"88095\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \\\"\\\"Pay yourself first\\\"\\\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \\\"\\\"fun money\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"new home fund\\\"\\\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \\\"\\\"paying yourself first\\\"\\\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \\\"\\\"mandatory\\\"\\\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"38016\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I would not concede your money to your dad IF he is really wronging you - and we need much more detail to tell. This is the first lesson in life that actually following up on \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" things will save you thousands of dollars throughout your adulthood. It is really easy to turn the other way and be out a few thousand dollars. Then the hospital overbills you and you let it go and so on. Follow up, it is your money. The laws behind this are pretty cut and dry. Basically if you put money into one account and only your money was touching the account then it is your money. As a minor this is an expectation and once your turn 18 in the US you have a right to your money. That is given that the money was in the account at 18. So if your dad truly did not touch the account and withdraw the money before you turned 18, it is cut and dry. If your dad took money out before 18 or added his own money to the account it gets rather fuzzy since it is easy for dad to say that I took money out for your expenses. As for this being \\\"\\\"nuclear\\\"\\\" as keshlam suggests - he is right. His advice is fine but sets you up for people taking advantage of your throughout your life, especially your family. In fact the situation is already nuclear but you were the only thing the bomb hit. So talk to your dad. Explain that you will have to go and file a small claims trial if he does not agree to give you the money. If your situation is already over the top I would bring the paperwork with you filled out. (a person at your local clerk's office will help you find the right forms) You on the other hand better weigh this conversation. We \\\"\\\"internet peoples\\\"\\\" are only hearing one side of the story. We do not understand your situation at your home. We don't understand who pays for your car, gas, clothes, and room and board. You are 18, so there is no obligation for parents to pay for these things. If I had an 18 year old that had 3K in the bank under my name and they hadn't helped around the house in a year, didn't buy their car, had a poor attitude, and so on I would probably have the same action as your dad. Yea it's \\\"\\\"your money\\\"\\\" but is it really? When I was 18 I bought ALL my clothes, bought my car, bought my gas/insurance, and so on. I paid for my toothpaste. If this is where you are at and you help out around the house like an adult would then you have solid ground to stand on. If not... I would laugh if I were your dad. My first thought would be you want your money, that is fine. But you are paying rent. Car is gone, get your own. You would be paying for everything. But you would have \\\"\\\"your money\\\"\\\". So you have some pros and cons to weigh here and taking the money could cost you a TON of money in the future. However if your dad is just being a pure jerk (I kind of doubt this but who knows) then you have an obligation to fight for what is yours. (Note that the end goal of any meeting like this in your life shouldn't be court. It should be an agreement so that the right action is taken and both parties are happy. It could be very well that your dad would be happy with something that has nothing to do with the money. Also there are people with really really bad situations at their homes. A controlling parent is a pretty good \\\"\\\"bad\\\"\\\" situation and an easy one to solve at 18 - move out. If you don't want to move out then accept your family members, not complain about them. No matter how controlling your dad is your question spews of ungrateful teenager. I am sure you aren't that bad and I am sure your dad isn't that bad.) (And another note: In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting you drop the money issue. There is nothing worse than not talking about it even if you think your dad will kick you out of the house. Resentment building up in yourself or family is the worst possible thing. This needs to be dealt with.)\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"106249\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"For one, the startup doesn't exist yet, so until March I will get nothing on hand, though I have enough reserves to bridge that time. I would not take this deal unless the start-up exists in some form. If it's just not yet profitable, then there's a risk/reward to consider. If it doesn't exist at all, then it cannot make a legal obligation to you and it's not worth taking the deal yet. If everything else is an acceptable risk to you, then you should be asking the other party to create the company and formalize the agreement with you. As regards reserves, if you're really getting paid in shares instead of cash, then you may need them later. Shares in a start-up likely are not easy to sell (if you're allowed to sell them at all), so it may be a while before a paycheck given what you've described. For a second, who pays the tax? This is my first non-university job so I don't exactly know, but usually the employer has to/does pay my taxes and some other stuff from my brutto-income (that's what I understood). If brutto=netto, where is the tax? This I cannot answer for Germany. In the U.S. it would depend in part on how the company is organized. It's likely that some or all of the tax will be deferred until you monetize your shares, but you should get some professional advice on that before you move forward. As an example, it's likely that you'd get taxed (in part or in whole) on what we'd call capital gains (maybe Abgeltungsteuer in German?) that would only be assessed when you sell the shares. For third, shares are a risk. If I or any other in the startup screw really, my pay might be a lot less than expected. Of course, if it works out I'm rich(er). This is the inherent risk of a start-up, so there's no getting around the fact that there's a chance that the business may fail and your shares become worthless. Up to you if you think the risk is acceptable. Where you can mitigate risk is in ensuring that there's a well-written and enforceable set of documents that define what rights go with the shares, who controls the company, how profits will be distributed, etc. Don't do this by spoken agreement only. Get it all written down, and then get it checked by a lawyer representing your interests.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"218153\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I am able to set this up for my tenants by providing them with a form to fill out so that they provide their name and bank account information, and then I gave that to my bank and they establish a recurring ACH transfer. This way the tenant never gets my bank information. One note about this, I had a tenant break her lease and move out. She notified me a couple of days before the first of the month, and by the time she had moved a few days later the rent had been automatically paid. She called her bank and asked them to reverse the most recent transaction so she could have that month's rent refunded, and much to my surprise, they did. So the financial transfer is not necessarily one-way. This is in the US.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"316980\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I got a job as an accounts receivable analyst about 4 months ago. It mostly involves running SQL queries on the companies database and determining whether things like the timing and movement of products/cash are appropriate. About 95% of my day is spent in Excel either analyzing data trends, correcting accounts where product or cash is out of alignment, and writing my boss/the c-level conclusions based on the state of all things AR. The other 5% of my day is staring vacantly at a blank piece of paper as I try to wrap my head around what I should be asking our database, and how to organize the results to find out what I need to be finding out. I would honestly say 30% of the work is mindlessly easy for me (now that I know what I'm doing), 50% of the work is smash-my-face-against-the-wall confusing, and 20% is \\\"\\\"I am solving problems by learning new things, hooray!\\\"\\\". I was not particularly interested in finance, in fact my skill set was computers then I found languages and went on a decade long tangent learning that. Turns out languages don't pay the bills very well and I need a career. I can get my company to pay for some education, but I don't know if finance is what I really want to do. Having read the rest of the comments in the thread, I will say I am not at all competitive with others (though I hold myself to very high standards). And if I feel others are too aggressive I will shut them out. I sometimes hear higher-ups in my company on the phone using their A-type personalities and wrestling with 3rd party companies and picture myself hanging up on them if I were on the other end of the phone.\\\"\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}},{"rowIdx":99,"cells":{"query_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10301"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What would be the signs of a bubble in silver?"},"positive_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"363899","title":"","text":"The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot."},{"docid":"288138","title":"","text":"How I recognize a silver bubble: I don't think silver is in a bubble. You state: What goes up, must come down I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, prices fluctuate. But most prices generally go up over time due to inflation - somethings more than others. Was coffee in a bubble in early 2005? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Was gold in a bubble in Argentina in 2001? If you thought so then you would have missed this (sorry for the mismatching chart scales): Was gold in a bubble in Weimar in 1922? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Maybe US farmland is in a bubble since prices are rising rather dramatically. I don't think it is in a bubble since I rarely hear anyone talking about investing in farmland:"},{"docid":"84414","title":"","text":"\"In my opinion, you're in a precious metals \"\"bubble\"\" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire the own the commodity without a reason other than \"\"the market is going up\"\". Usually \"\"bubble\"\" markets are fueled by lots of debt. IMO, this isn't a bubble. I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation. In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself. If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%. The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series I Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010. Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food. I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday... that was $0.99 4-5 years ago. People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that. They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation. I think the question to ask is: \"\"Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?\"\"\""},{"docid":"318656","title":"","text":"If markets were perfectly efficient, the price should reflect everything that is currently known about the future of a commodity. If it is known that silver is currently under-valued, then investors would be buying it -- driving the price up. Conversely, if silver is currently over-valued, then investors would be selling and the price would be going down. Added to that is emotion. If the price is currently trending up, then people expect it to keep going up, and the price continues to rise. Until enough people think it can't go any higher and start selling, which drives the price down. Since this is driven by emotion, it cannot be predicted when this will happen."},{"docid":"370948","title":"","text":"@fennec is right, no one knows. Here's a link that may help: http://pragcap.com/silver-prices-display-some-bubbly-characteristics I don't follow markets enough to comment, but I have read enough of Cullen's stuff to know he's not off his rocker."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"363899\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"288138\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"How I recognize a silver bubble: I don't think silver is in a bubble. You state: What goes up, must come down I'm not sure I agree with this. Yes, prices fluctuate. But most prices generally go up over time due to inflation - somethings more than others. Was coffee in a bubble in early 2005? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Was gold in a bubble in Argentina in 2001? If you thought so then you would have missed this (sorry for the mismatching chart scales): Was gold in a bubble in Weimar in 1922? If you thought so then you would have missed this: Maybe US farmland is in a bubble since prices are rising rather dramatically. I don't think it is in a bubble since I rarely hear anyone talking about investing in farmland:\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"84414\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"In my opinion, you're in a precious metals \\\"\\\"bubble\\\"\\\" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire the own the commodity without a reason other than \\\"\\\"the market is going up\\\"\\\". Usually \\\"\\\"bubble\\\"\\\" markets are fueled by lots of debt. IMO, this isn't a bubble. I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation. In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself. If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%. The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series I Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010. Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food. I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday... that was $0.99 4-5 years ago. People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that. They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation. I think the question to ask is: \\\"\\\"Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?\\\"\\\"\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"318656\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"If markets were perfectly efficient, the price should reflect everything that is currently known about the future of a commodity. If it is known that silver is currently under-valued, then investors would be buying it -- driving the price up. Conversely, if silver is currently over-valued, then investors would be selling and the price would be going down. Added to that is emotion. If the price is currently trending up, then people expect it to keep going up, and the price continues to rise. Until enough people think it can't go any higher and start selling, which drives the price down. Since this is driven by emotion, it cannot be predicted when this will happen.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"370948\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"@fennec is right, no one knows. Here's a link that may help: http://pragcap.com/silver-prices-display-some-bubbly-characteristics I don't follow markets enough to comment, but I have read enough of Cullen's stuff to know he's not off his rocker.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false},"negative_passages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"docid":"160623","title":"","text":"\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for inflation. This is grounds that the economy is in a recession, and will be. Bond's aren't really an investment in business as they are loaning money to the government on interest so they don't portray whether the economy is in recession or not. The premise was that a recession is/has occurred, not that money cannot be made in a good portfolio. Perhaps you didn't fully understand my last point, I don't believe gold and silver are the bubble. I believe the dollar is the bubble and it has been bursting since 2000. Commodity prices are merely a sign of the bursting bubble. Given that we're in recession, the only way to \"\"pull-out\"\" as it is apparent people have been doing for the past 10 years, is to buy real assets and that this creates a positive feedback loop into devaluing the dollar. Not everyone will pull out, but most will. For a long while the assets have had little exposure to the inflation of the dollar, and now it's catching up to the assets. Ergo assets are undervalued, they are not the bubble.\""},{"docid":"190772","title":"","text":"I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)"},{"docid":"425680","title":"","text":"\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \"\"Gaming\"\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \"\"Chickens coming home to roost\"\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \"\"Cold feet\"\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \"\"Wasteland\"\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \"\"poster child\"\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\""},{"docid":"426771","title":"","text":"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer."},{"docid":"443397","title":"","text":"You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations."},{"docid":"427411","title":"","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."},{"docid":"460839","title":"","text":"\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\""},{"docid":"453422","title":"","text":"> The essential reason for this is that rising premiums in silver plans would trigger an increase in tax credits for low-income individuals whose premium-paying responsibilities are limited by the ACA. So if I'm understanding this correctly, a reduction in subsidies for silver plan recipients would result in higher premiums overall, which would result in low-income individuals losing enough income to qualify for other tax benefit programs that would cancel out these higher premiums. If that is the case, what an odd take on that scenario. It's finding the one silver lining in a very, very bad situation. The case described would push a lot of people off the cliff of self-sufficiency, and the headline makes that sound like a good thing?"},{"docid":"213561","title":"","text":"\"Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it. In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct. As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate? Or what have they not confiscated in the past? If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years. I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice. If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it. In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis. Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - \"\"it depends\"\" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, \"\"There's a time and place for everything under the sun.\"\" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr\""},{"docid":"555879","title":"","text":"\"I'm not so sure, most of these \"\"savings\"\" from the report is from the construction industry, they're struggling as it is and the fact they are adding jobs is a good sign even if the wages are less than before. We just saw a bubble burst in real estate, of course any company that is benefiting from a growing bubble is going to be able to pay their employee's a lot more than they could after the bubble burst, assuming the companies are even around still.\""},{"docid":"199464","title":"","text":"Lather doesn't mean products are cleaning. Bubbling agents are added to make it appear like they're cleaning. Sometime in the history of us products, bubbles came to be seen as a sign that the product is working, even though it's not doing shit. Just fyi."},{"docid":"170594","title":"","text":"You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing."},{"docid":"194279","title":"","text":"\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\""},{"docid":"588101","title":"","text":"\"Great, so we agree it's not a fraud and the title of the bloomberg article is grossly misleading. Even still, to call it a bubble, you'd need to first agree to what the non-bubble valuation of Bitcoin would be. The consensus among those who use the word \"\"tulip\"\" frequently when talking about bitcoin is that the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin is zero (0). This, of course, means that Bitcoin has been in a bubble ever since the first exchange of good was made with it (which folklore tells us was a purchase of 2 pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins, establishing a price of under $0.01 per bitcoin. Ever since, for the past 7 years, Bitcoin has been in a bubble. Furthermore, for as long as Bitcoin's market value remains at or above $0.01 per bitcoin, it will still be in a bubble. If me and a few hundred thousand of my closest friends have anything to say about it, that will never happen. And therefore Bitcoin will remain in a bubble indefinitely. Now that, to me, seems like a very unusual bubble. If that strikes you as a stretch of the concept too, then maybe we need to revisit an assumption or two here. For one, is the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin really zero? Is there perhaps something about bitcoin that might give it some intrinsic value that, say, tulips or beanie babies may not have? And if there is, is there a way to estimate what that value may be? Does that value change over time? Is it perhaps possible that the value of bitcoin correlates in some fashion with its reach and its network effect? Those are harder questions to answer, and their answers is certainly not as neat and precise as \"\"zero\"\" or \"\"bubble\"\", but maybe it's useful to think about them when trying to reason about what bitcoin is and isn't.\""},{"docid":"516236","title":"","text":"Save up to 90% on popular electronics, gift cards, gold and silver coins and much more. Grab your Deal of the Day. Bid on discount gift cards. Get Huge savings at PennyGrab Daily Deals. Sign up hurry and receive s special bonus!."},{"docid":"337243","title":"","text":"\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\""},{"docid":"21314","title":"","text":"\"This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see \"\"silver only\"\" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time.\""},{"docid":"474187","title":"","text":"Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side."},{"docid":"145404","title":"","text":"\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\""},{"docid":"557532","title":"","text":"You would have to collect an awful lot to make it profitable. The melting process alone will cost an arm and a leg. Go silver hunting with rolls of Half dollars. You might strike it lucky with rolls of Kennedy's. Its good fun too :) 1964 Kennedy's 90% silver 1965-1970 Kennedy's 40% silver I go looking on ebay collecting for typo errors on pre 1920's British silver coinage. Picked up a George 3rd 1816 Shilling for £3....worth £30....but even if your doing it just for the silver content, you can pick up a real bargain. Just think of how your going to offload them. Here in the UK its easy because there is a huge market for Numismatic coins."},{"docid":"291862","title":"","text":"The issue with holding gold or silver is the liquidity of the asset. How are you going to unload on thousands of dollars of silver when you want to buy something? I dont think there will be hyperinflation period. It will be slow and solved politically eventually. If the dollar collapsed we would be in deep trouble. Investing in guns would likely be more profitable than silver and gold and in the anarchy you'd better believe someone will try to take your stash."},{"docid":"41924","title":"","text":"I love that the Spanish named like half of the locations in Argentina to something in some way silver related. And there was nothing of the sort there. Nothing. Yet they were *certain* they would find that silver. Always made me wonder...did the indigenous peoples wear a lot of silver traded from Brazil or something?"},{"docid":"209635","title":"","text":"\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\""},{"docid":"304461","title":"","text":"\"It's a statement that seems to be true about our tendency to believe we won't make the same mistake twice, even though we do, and that somehow what's occurring in the present is completely different, even when the underlying fundamentals of the situation may be nearly identical. It's a form of self-delusion and, sometimes, mass-delusion, and it has been a major contributing factor to many of our worst financial disasters. If you look at every housing bubble, for instance, we examine the aftermath, put new regulations and procedures into place, theoretically to prevent it from happening again, and then move forward. When the cycle starts to repeat itself, we ignore the signals, telling ourselves, \"\"oh, that can't happen again -- this time it's different.\"\" When investors begin to ignore the warning signs because they think the current situation is somehow totally different and therefore there will be a different outcome than the last disaster, that's when things actually do go bad. The 2008 housing crisis was caused by the same essential forces that brought about similar (albeit smaller scale) housing disasters in the 80's and 90's -- greed caused banks and other participants in the housing sector to make loans they knew were no good (an oversimplification to be sure, but apt nonetheless), and eventually the roof caved in on the market. In 2008, the essential dynamics were the same, but everyone had convinced themselves that the markets were more sophisticated and could never allow things like that to happen again. So, everyone told themselves this was different, and they dove into the markets headlong, ignoring all of the warning signs along the way that clearly told the story of what was coming had anyone bothered to notice.\""},{"docid":"308332","title":"","text":"I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets. If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse. Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier. I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees. And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it."},{"docid":"469473","title":"","text":"\"Honestly, I think the best thing the government could do at this point is to stop with stimulus spending and let the market pick the winners and losers. The government is horrible at this because it just throws money where it makes sense politically, not economically (which is what got us into this mess in the first place). Obama is repeating all of the same mistakes made by Bush, but to a larger degree. When the dot-com bubble burst, Bush & Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates to 1% and printed money to \"\"stimulate\"\" the economy. The goal was not to create a housing bubble like what happened, but rather to get people to invest in stocks again. Instead, the people who had been bitten by stocks looked around and saw that housing had a history of increasing in value w/o nearly as much risk of loss, so they invested in housing instead. Clinton's and Bush's policies of guaranteeing loans to lower-income families for the purpose of buying homes also contributed to this, and the next thing you know - housing prices boomed because there was a massive demand... thus leading to the housing market crash of 2007/8. But that's not all, you see, because as people started to believe that their homes would increase in value by huge amounts, they started spending more, risking more on the stock market, and generally going into massive debt because they felt wealthy. So in 2008, when the housing bubble crashed, so did the stock bubble and the personal debt bubble, leaving many home owners broke, their retirement funds (401k's and IRA's) destroyed, and without any means of paying their mortgages, thus the rise in people losing their homes. What has Obama's policy been? The same as Bush's policy, but he printed MORE (tripled our money supply in 3 years) and lowered interest rates even MORE (effectively to 0%). What so many people don't seem to understand is that printing money effectively steals money from the middle class. It's a hidden tax on our savings accounts. If more people realized this, they'd be outraged. Luckily for the government, most people are mindless sheep willing to buy into the political propaganda being pushed by the media.\""},{"docid":"266984","title":"","text":"\">We were on the \"\"gold standard\"\" in name only since about 1910. There a few nuances behind the \"\"gold standard\"\" but all revolve around indebtedness and currency devaluation. The US actually started off in 1785 with a Silver standard. By the turn of the 18th century there was a fixed ratio of silver and gold to dollars. Silver was not required to back all of the currency, gold was used as well. This bi-metallic standard continued until 1920s. Gold and Silver were legal tender. The US treasury was on a strict hard-money standard. Doing business in only gold and silver until 1848 which seperated the Federal Government from the banking system. It was only after this move the federal government started the devaluation/overvaluation of silver in order to \"\"borrow\"\" from England. Silver came in, Gold came out. This also largely catalyzed the 1849 Gold Rush. Then in 1853 the US started reducing the weight of silver coins. In 1857 banks suspended payment in Silver. But the basic weakness in a gold standard started with GOVERNMENT wanting to manipulate value to unfairly skew debt/loan situations. >There was not enough gold to remotely back the US currency This is not true. US currency did just fine, and as governments print, so too do prices go up. So if there is only 50 Billion currency units in existance and eggs cost 10 cents (as they did for previous decades), when the federal government prints its way to trillions thats where we end up with eggs costing 2-3 bucks. That's why your grandparents house cost 6,000 and ones today cost 600,000. >which is why during the great depression when people started wanting to turn their cash back in to gold there was no enough No, they turned back to gold because of the devaluation of the dollar. If the dollar was falling as it is today, why would you want to keep your assets in dollars? Gold cannot be printed at whim, this is one of the most important factors. It forces government to be much more strict with debt. If taxpayers were faced with higher taxes or devaluation to pay for the current Iraq/Afganistan wars, would it have happened? No, but since the government could print money at whim, it served as an invisible tax. >and gold possession had to be outlawed It was outlawed because as the dollar plummeted and gold was eventually made illegal, the value of gold doubled and rapidly increased overnight, this happened again in 1970 when nixon took us off the gold standard. Gold posession was made illegal to prevent \"\"hoarders and opportunists\"\". You make it sound like gold redemption is a bad thing, when really its the government being naughty and citizens simply playing the game and by the rules set up by the government. >So no, we were not on a gold standard. Yeah I never said we were. But there is a very important reason we once were, so government couldnt devalue currency to rack up more debt. (A HUGE issue that has now played out to its logical conclusion, maximum indebtedness mixed with massive mechanisms for manipulation) >Secondly, when you're on a (any fixed item) standard, your economy only can grow at roughly the rate you fond more of the (fixed item). Is that why the US did just fine between 1780 and 1913? Over a hundred years. The cost of many items was stable for DECADES. Nowadays we have a doubling effect with cars costing 4,000 in 1970, 26,000 in 2000, 45,000 in 2012. The same with houses, food, education, medical services, you name it. >There are many reasons for this, and it is partially why for thousands of years of various gold standard there was so little economic growth. Once countries stopped limiting the amount of total economic growth to the amount of gold they could dig up, that economies were able to grow at the sustained rate they have for the past 200ish years. Wrong again, this is because of productivity from technology and invention, oil, electricity, automobiles, airplanes and eventually computers. Infact as I said above, fiat currency actually kills productivity. Its hard to compare the turn of the century, but we can see what happened after nixon took us off the gold standard here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. 1.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for policymakers: GDP growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency, or in infrastructure, but instead by just pumping money into the system. 2.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for businesses: revenue growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency. >So, besides the fact that the US has not in modern history been backed by gold, despite the name, there is ample evidence from hundreds of economies and thousands of years that being on a gold standard = little or no economic growth. Since nixon took us off the gold standard in terms of dollar connection in anyway to gold the value of the dollar has plummeted 70%. Its over 95% if you go back to the early 1900s and currency debasement. There was plenty of economic growth while we were on the gold standard and to say otherwise is simply false.\""},{"docid":"516214","title":"","text":"\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\""},{"docid":"180404","title":"","text":"\"Intrinsic value is a myth. There is no such thing. Subjective human demand is the only thing that gives anything value. This subjectivity is different person to person and can change very quickly. Historically there are two main uses for gold: jewelry and money. How can you tell when a particular type of money is undervalued? It disappears from circulation since people prefer to use money that is overvalued. This phenomenon is paraphrased in Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out good money. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US dollar as 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold. This established a government ratio of 15 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold. In the late 18th century there was a large production of silver from Mexico and the market ratio of silver to gold increased to 15.75 to 1 by 1805. The government ratio, however, was still 15 to 1. This was enough incentive for people to exchange their silver coins for gold coins at the government ratio, melt the gold, and sell the gold bullion overseas at the market value. Thus, gold coins disappeared from circulation as people either hoarded the gold or sent it abroad. People used the overvalued silver coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and gold coins disappeared from the market. In an attempt to correct the problem of disappearing gold coins the Coinage Act of 1834 was enacted. It kept the US dollar at 371.25 grains of silver but changed the definition to 23.2 grains of gold which established a government ratio of 16 to 1. This was close to the market ratio of gold to silver at the time so both gold and silver coins appeared in circulation again. The gold rush of 1849 produced a lot of gold and the market ratio of silver to gold became 15.46 to 1. Now gold was overvalued so people began exchanging their gold coins for silver coins at the government ratio, melt the silver, and sell the silver bullion overseas at the market value. People used the overvalued gold coins (i.e. the \"\"bad\"\" money) domestically and silver coins disappeared from the market. When you see gold circulating everywhere you will know it is overvalued compared to other types of money. Paper money always drives gold out of circulation since the market ratio of paper to gold severely under values gold. Source here.\""},{"docid":"245532","title":"","text":"China is in the middle of a residential housing bubble, and now is probably a horrible time to invest in real estate in China. Even if China wasn't near the peak of its bubble it would probably still be a bad idea because owning real estate in a foreign country is expensive and risky. There are real currency risks, think what would happen if the yuan declined significantly against the dollar. There is also the risk of the government seizing foreign held investments (not extremely likely but plausible). Another consideration is that it would be next to impossible for you to get a loan to purchase a property US banks wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole and I doubt Chinese banks would be very interested in lending to foreigners."}],"string":"[\n {\n \"docid\": \"160623\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for inflation. This is grounds that the economy is in a recession, and will be. Bond's aren't really an investment in business as they are loaning money to the government on interest so they don't portray whether the economy is in recession or not. The premise was that a recession is/has occurred, not that money cannot be made in a good portfolio. Perhaps you didn't fully understand my last point, I don't believe gold and silver are the bubble. I believe the dollar is the bubble and it has been bursting since 2000. Commodity prices are merely a sign of the bursting bubble. Given that we're in recession, the only way to \\\"\\\"pull-out\\\"\\\" as it is apparent people have been doing for the past 10 years, is to buy real assets and that this creates a positive feedback loop into devaluing the dollar. Not everyone will pull out, but most will. For a long while the assets have had little exposure to the inflation of the dollar, and now it's catching up to the assets. Ergo assets are undervalued, they are not the bubble.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"190772\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"425680\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry \\\"\\\"Gaming\\\"\\\" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated \\\"\\\"Chickens coming home to roost\\\"\\\" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market \\\"\\\"Cold feet\\\"\\\" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product \\\"\\\"Wasteland\\\"\\\" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980. The \\\"\\\"poster child\\\"\\\" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"426771\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"443397\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"427411\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"460839\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Google \\\"\\\"forex broker\\\"\\\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"453422\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"> The essential reason for this is that rising premiums in silver plans would trigger an increase in tax credits for low-income individuals whose premium-paying responsibilities are limited by the ACA. So if I'm understanding this correctly, a reduction in subsidies for silver plan recipients would result in higher premiums overall, which would result in low-income individuals losing enough income to qualify for other tax benefit programs that would cancel out these higher premiums. If that is the case, what an odd take on that scenario. It's finding the one silver lining in a very, very bad situation. The case described would push a lot of people off the cliff of self-sufficiency, and the headline makes that sound like a good thing?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"213561\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it. In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct. As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate? Or what have they not confiscated in the past? If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years. I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice. If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it. In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis. Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - \\\"\\\"it depends\\\"\\\" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, \\\"\\\"There's a time and place for everything under the sun.\\\"\\\" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"555879\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"I'm not so sure, most of these \\\"\\\"savings\\\"\\\" from the report is from the construction industry, they're struggling as it is and the fact they are adding jobs is a good sign even if the wages are less than before. We just saw a bubble burst in real estate, of course any company that is benefiting from a growing bubble is going to be able to pay their employee's a lot more than they could after the bubble burst, assuming the companies are even around still.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"199464\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Lather doesn't mean products are cleaning. Bubbling agents are added to make it appear like they're cleaning. Sometime in the history of us products, bubbles came to be seen as a sign that the product is working, even though it's not doing shit. Just fyi.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"170594\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"194279\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"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.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"588101\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Great, so we agree it's not a fraud and the title of the bloomberg article is grossly misleading. Even still, to call it a bubble, you'd need to first agree to what the non-bubble valuation of Bitcoin would be. The consensus among those who use the word \\\"\\\"tulip\\\"\\\" frequently when talking about bitcoin is that the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin is zero (0). This, of course, means that Bitcoin has been in a bubble ever since the first exchange of good was made with it (which folklore tells us was a purchase of 2 pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins, establishing a price of under $0.01 per bitcoin. Ever since, for the past 7 years, Bitcoin has been in a bubble. Furthermore, for as long as Bitcoin's market value remains at or above $0.01 per bitcoin, it will still be in a bubble. If me and a few hundred thousand of my closest friends have anything to say about it, that will never happen. And therefore Bitcoin will remain in a bubble indefinitely. Now that, to me, seems like a very unusual bubble. If that strikes you as a stretch of the concept too, then maybe we need to revisit an assumption or two here. For one, is the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin really zero? Is there perhaps something about bitcoin that might give it some intrinsic value that, say, tulips or beanie babies may not have? And if there is, is there a way to estimate what that value may be? Does that value change over time? Is it perhaps possible that the value of bitcoin correlates in some fashion with its reach and its network effect? Those are harder questions to answer, and their answers is certainly not as neat and precise as \\\"\\\"zero\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"bubble\\\"\\\", but maybe it's useful to think about them when trying to reason about what bitcoin is and isn't.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"516236\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Save up to 90% on popular electronics, gift cards, gold and silver coins and much more. Grab your Deal of the Day. Bid on discount gift cards. Get Huge savings at PennyGrab Daily Deals. Sign up hurry and receive s special bonus!.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"337243\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \\\"\\\"bar of gold\\\"\\\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\" and a pure silver \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"21314\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"This sound like a very bad idea. If you invest exclusively in silver, your investment is not diversified in any way. This is what I would call risky. Have a look at index funds and ETFs and build a diversified portfolio. It does not take much time, and you don't need to let it do by someone else. They are risky too, but I see \\\"\\\"silver only\\\"\\\" as much riskier. You reduce the risk by holding on to the funds for a long time.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"474187\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"145404\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \\\"\\\"revenue\\\"\\\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \\\"\\\"accrues\\\"\\\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \\\"\\\"signature loan\\\"\\\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \\\"\\\"stores of value\\\"\\\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \\\"\\\"broken window\\\"\\\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \\\"\\\"distressed\\\"\\\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \\\"\\\"toxic assets\\\"\\\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \\\"\\\"strategic default\\\"\\\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"557532\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"You would have to collect an awful lot to make it profitable. The melting process alone will cost an arm and a leg. Go silver hunting with rolls of Half dollars. You might strike it lucky with rolls of Kennedy's. Its good fun too :) 1964 Kennedy's 90% silver 1965-1970 Kennedy's 40% silver I go looking on ebay collecting for typo errors on pre 1920's British silver coinage. Picked up a George 3rd 1816 Shilling for £3....worth £30....but even if your doing it just for the silver content, you can pick up a real bargain. Just think of how your going to offload them. Here in the UK its easy because there is a huge market for Numismatic coins.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"291862\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"The issue with holding gold or silver is the liquidity of the asset. How are you going to unload on thousands of dollars of silver when you want to buy something? I dont think there will be hyperinflation period. It will be slow and solved politically eventually. If the dollar collapsed we would be in deep trouble. Investing in guns would likely be more profitable than silver and gold and in the anarchy you'd better believe someone will try to take your stash.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"41924\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I love that the Spanish named like half of the locations in Argentina to something in some way silver related. And there was nothing of the sort there. Nothing. Yet they were *certain* they would find that silver. Always made me wonder...did the indigenous peoples wear a lot of silver traded from Brazil or something?\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"209635\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \\\"\\\"out there\\\"\\\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \\\"\\\"buckets\\\"\\\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"304461\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"It's a statement that seems to be true about our tendency to believe we won't make the same mistake twice, even though we do, and that somehow what's occurring in the present is completely different, even when the underlying fundamentals of the situation may be nearly identical. It's a form of self-delusion and, sometimes, mass-delusion, and it has been a major contributing factor to many of our worst financial disasters. If you look at every housing bubble, for instance, we examine the aftermath, put new regulations and procedures into place, theoretically to prevent it from happening again, and then move forward. When the cycle starts to repeat itself, we ignore the signals, telling ourselves, \\\"\\\"oh, that can't happen again -- this time it's different.\\\"\\\" When investors begin to ignore the warning signs because they think the current situation is somehow totally different and therefore there will be a different outcome than the last disaster, that's when things actually do go bad. The 2008 housing crisis was caused by the same essential forces that brought about similar (albeit smaller scale) housing disasters in the 80's and 90's -- greed caused banks and other participants in the housing sector to make loans they knew were no good (an oversimplification to be sure, but apt nonetheless), and eventually the roof caved in on the market. In 2008, the essential dynamics were the same, but everyone had convinced themselves that the markets were more sophisticated and could never allow things like that to happen again. So, everyone told themselves this was different, and they dove into the markets headlong, ignoring all of the warning signs along the way that clearly told the story of what was coming had anyone bothered to notice.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"308332\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets. If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse. Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier. I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees. And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it.\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"469473\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Honestly, I think the best thing the government could do at this point is to stop with stimulus spending and let the market pick the winners and losers. The government is horrible at this because it just throws money where it makes sense politically, not economically (which is what got us into this mess in the first place). Obama is repeating all of the same mistakes made by Bush, but to a larger degree. When the dot-com bubble burst, Bush & Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates to 1% and printed money to \\\"\\\"stimulate\\\"\\\" the economy. The goal was not to create a housing bubble like what happened, but rather to get people to invest in stocks again. Instead, the people who had been bitten by stocks looked around and saw that housing had a history of increasing in value w/o nearly as much risk of loss, so they invested in housing instead. Clinton's and Bush's policies of guaranteeing loans to lower-income families for the purpose of buying homes also contributed to this, and the next thing you know - housing prices boomed because there was a massive demand... thus leading to the housing market crash of 2007/8. But that's not all, you see, because as people started to believe that their homes would increase in value by huge amounts, they started spending more, risking more on the stock market, and generally going into massive debt because they felt wealthy. So in 2008, when the housing bubble crashed, so did the stock bubble and the personal debt bubble, leaving many home owners broke, their retirement funds (401k's and IRA's) destroyed, and without any means of paying their mortgages, thus the rise in people losing their homes. What has Obama's policy been? The same as Bush's policy, but he printed MORE (tripled our money supply in 3 years) and lowered interest rates even MORE (effectively to 0%). What so many people don't seem to understand is that printing money effectively steals money from the middle class. It's a hidden tax on our savings accounts. If more people realized this, they'd be outraged. Luckily for the government, most people are mindless sheep willing to buy into the political propaganda being pushed by the media.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"266984\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\">We were on the \\\"\\\"gold standard\\\"\\\" in name only since about 1910. There a few nuances behind the \\\"\\\"gold standard\\\"\\\" but all revolve around indebtedness and currency devaluation. The US actually started off in 1785 with a Silver standard. By the turn of the 18th century there was a fixed ratio of silver and gold to dollars. Silver was not required to back all of the currency, gold was used as well. This bi-metallic standard continued until 1920s. Gold and Silver were legal tender. The US treasury was on a strict hard-money standard. Doing business in only gold and silver until 1848 which seperated the Federal Government from the banking system. It was only after this move the federal government started the devaluation/overvaluation of silver in order to \\\"\\\"borrow\\\"\\\" from England. Silver came in, Gold came out. This also largely catalyzed the 1849 Gold Rush. Then in 1853 the US started reducing the weight of silver coins. In 1857 banks suspended payment in Silver. But the basic weakness in a gold standard started with GOVERNMENT wanting to manipulate value to unfairly skew debt/loan situations. >There was not enough gold to remotely back the US currency This is not true. US currency did just fine, and as governments print, so too do prices go up. So if there is only 50 Billion currency units in existance and eggs cost 10 cents (as they did for previous decades), when the federal government prints its way to trillions thats where we end up with eggs costing 2-3 bucks. That's why your grandparents house cost 6,000 and ones today cost 600,000. >which is why during the great depression when people started wanting to turn their cash back in to gold there was no enough No, they turned back to gold because of the devaluation of the dollar. If the dollar was falling as it is today, why would you want to keep your assets in dollars? Gold cannot be printed at whim, this is one of the most important factors. It forces government to be much more strict with debt. If taxpayers were faced with higher taxes or devaluation to pay for the current Iraq/Afganistan wars, would it have happened? No, but since the government could print money at whim, it served as an invisible tax. >and gold possession had to be outlawed It was outlawed because as the dollar plummeted and gold was eventually made illegal, the value of gold doubled and rapidly increased overnight, this happened again in 1970 when nixon took us off the gold standard. Gold posession was made illegal to prevent \\\"\\\"hoarders and opportunists\\\"\\\". You make it sound like gold redemption is a bad thing, when really its the government being naughty and citizens simply playing the game and by the rules set up by the government. >So no, we were not on a gold standard. Yeah I never said we were. But there is a very important reason we once were, so government couldnt devalue currency to rack up more debt. (A HUGE issue that has now played out to its logical conclusion, maximum indebtedness mixed with massive mechanisms for manipulation) >Secondly, when you're on a (any fixed item) standard, your economy only can grow at roughly the rate you fond more of the (fixed item). Is that why the US did just fine between 1780 and 1913? Over a hundred years. The cost of many items was stable for DECADES. Nowadays we have a doubling effect with cars costing 4,000 in 1970, 26,000 in 2000, 45,000 in 2012. The same with houses, food, education, medical services, you name it. >There are many reasons for this, and it is partially why for thousands of years of various gold standard there was so little economic growth. Once countries stopped limiting the amount of total economic growth to the amount of gold they could dig up, that economies were able to grow at the sustained rate they have for the past 200ish years. Wrong again, this is because of productivity from technology and invention, oil, electricity, automobiles, airplanes and eventually computers. Infact as I said above, fiat currency actually kills productivity. Its hard to compare the turn of the century, but we can see what happened after nixon took us off the gold standard here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. 1.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for policymakers: GDP growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency, or in infrastructure, but instead by just pumping money into the system. 2.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for businesses: revenue growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency. >So, besides the fact that the US has not in modern history been backed by gold, despite the name, there is ample evidence from hundreds of economies and thousands of years that being on a gold standard = little or no economic growth. Since nixon took us off the gold standard in terms of dollar connection in anyway to gold the value of the dollar has plummeted 70%. Its over 95% if you go back to the early 1900s and currency debasement. There was plenty of economic growth while we were on the gold standard and to say otherwise is simply false.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"516214\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \\\"\\\"lose everything\\\"\\\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \\\"\\\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\\\"\\\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"180404\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"\\\"Intrinsic value is a myth. There is no such thing. Subjective human demand is the only thing that gives anything value. This subjectivity is different person to person and can change very quickly. Historically there are two main uses for gold: jewelry and money. How can you tell when a particular type of money is undervalued? It disappears from circulation since people prefer to use money that is overvalued. This phenomenon is paraphrased in Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out good money. The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US dollar as 371.25 grains of silver or 24.75 grains of gold. This established a government ratio of 15 ounces of silver to 1 ounce of gold. In the late 18th century there was a large production of silver from Mexico and the market ratio of silver to gold increased to 15.75 to 1 by 1805. The government ratio, however, was still 15 to 1. This was enough incentive for people to exchange their silver coins for gold coins at the government ratio, melt the gold, and sell the gold bullion overseas at the market value. Thus, gold coins disappeared from circulation as people either hoarded the gold or sent it abroad. People used the overvalued silver coins (i.e. the \\\"\\\"bad\\\"\\\" money) domestically and gold coins disappeared from the market. In an attempt to correct the problem of disappearing gold coins the Coinage Act of 1834 was enacted. It kept the US dollar at 371.25 grains of silver but changed the definition to 23.2 grains of gold which established a government ratio of 16 to 1. This was close to the market ratio of gold to silver at the time so both gold and silver coins appeared in circulation again. The gold rush of 1849 produced a lot of gold and the market ratio of silver to gold became 15.46 to 1. Now gold was overvalued so people began exchanging their gold coins for silver coins at the government ratio, melt the silver, and sell the silver bullion overseas at the market value. People used the overvalued gold coins (i.e. the \\\"\\\"bad\\\"\\\" money) domestically and silver coins disappeared from the market. When you see gold circulating everywhere you will know it is overvalued compared to other types of money. Paper money always drives gold out of circulation since the market ratio of paper to gold severely under values gold. Source here.\\\"\"\n },\n {\n \"docid\": \"245532\",\n \"title\": \"\",\n \"text\": \"China is in the middle of a residential housing bubble, and now is probably a horrible time to invest in real estate in China. Even if China wasn't near the peak of its bubble it would probably still be a bad idea because owning real estate in a foreign country is expensive and risky. There are real currency risks, think what would happen if the yuan declined significantly against the dollar. There is also the risk of the government seizing foreign held investments (not extremely likely but plausible). Another consideration is that it would be next to impossible for you to get a loan to purchase a property US banks wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole and I doubt Chinese banks would be very interested in lending to foreigners.\"\n }\n]","isConversational":false}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":0,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":500,"offset":0,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3Mjk0NTAwMCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL3Nza3RvcmEvZmlxYS1kZXYtYm0yNS1weXNlcmluaSIsImV4cCI6MTc3Mjk0ODYwMCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.hBwtIWlOnQtyLFkAKCp2ch2k05GF761QUTfhtIjunPsBl52ZhHRU919aFztUPsYXOP6CDdIk7EWmFSwkbHqWAA","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":500,"numBytesParquet":16094005}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
query_id stringlengths 1 5 | query stringlengths 15 166 | positive_passages listlengths 1 20 | negative_passages listlengths 30 30 |
|---|---|---|---|
7208 | Could an ex-employee of a company find themself stranded with shares they cannot sell (and a tax bill)? | [
{
"docid": "365092",
"title": "",
"text": "\"they are entirely free to do whatever they want with the shares. In particular, they can sell them to whomever they choose No. Restrictions on who can sell when and to whom are a common thing with startups. \"\"Publicly traded\"\" companies are regulated in a... | [
{
"docid": "12899",
"title": "",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate hel... |
1753 | Better ways to invest money held by my small, privately-held Canadian corporation? | [
{
"docid": "72131",
"title": "",
"text": "Since you are talking about a small firm, for the long term, it would be advisable to invest your money into the expansion - growth, diversification, integration - of your business. However, if your intention is to make proper use of your earnings in the short t... | [
{
"docid": "306679",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest. They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100. This equates to a negative annual \"\"re... |
6068 | At what point is it most advantageous to cease depositing into a 401k? | [
{
"docid": "477021",
"title": "",
"text": "It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investme... | [
{
"docid": "564796",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the... |
1952 | What happened when the dot com bubble burst? | [
{
"docid": "414596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The dot.com companies were purveyors of the Internet, then a \"\"new\"\" technology around 2000. Everyone \"\"knows\"\" that such a new technology will change the economy and society. What people didn't know at the time was WHICH companies would be the leader... | [
{
"docid": "519297",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This refers to the faulty idea that the stock market will behave differently than it has in the past. For example, in the late 1990s, internet stocks rose to ridiculous heights in price, to be followed soon after with the Dot-Com Bubble crash. In the future,... |
8032 | What pension options are there for a 22 year old graduate in the UK? | [
{
"docid": "164819",
"title": "",
"text": "Major things to consider: If you're expecting to look at the property market: it might prove to be sensible to start doing it now, since the market is just recovering, and (IMHO warning -I'm not a professional investor, just a random guy on the internet) prices... | [
{
"docid": "325113",
"title": "",
"text": "In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowanc... |
5465 | How can I get the car refinanced under my name if my girlfriend signed for the loan? | [
{
"docid": "94317",
"title": "",
"text": "Your best bet would be to add your name to the title through the bank or have her sell it to you for the amount she owes then you get a loan for that amount like they said before. If you guys split up at this point she'll legally get to keep the car you've been ... | [
{
"docid": "249017",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your arrangements with the bank are irrelevant. Whoever is named on the title of the vehicle owns it. If she is the \"\"primary\"\", then I assume her name is on the title, therefore she owns the car. If you drive off with the car and it is titled in her name... |
10677 | I am a Canadian resident who wants to gift my Adult US child CAD$175K. What are the tax implications? | [
{
"docid": "309555",
"title": "",
"text": "The United States taxes gifts to the giver, not the receiver. Thus, in your case there would be no direct tax implications from the receiver so long as you are gifting cash and the cash is in Canada. If you are gifting capital (stocks, property, etc.), or if ... | [
{
"docid": "97010",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have heard that I can give 10k as a gift in cash for my aunt to take on the plane. Please don't, for her own safety. Don't know when was the last you've been to Russia, but that's not a place to walk around with $10K in cash in your pocket. For the rest, t... |
838 | Need your help and suggestion | [
{
"docid": "322838",
"title": "",
"text": "How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfe... | [
{
"docid": "437901",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Most of what other ppl are suggesting can be be filed under \"\"be a good employee\"\" which it sounds like you already kind of are as a waitress which is why he asked you to interview with him. Things that are maybe more specific to the finance world that c... |
7979 | What is meant by a market that is technically strong | [
{
"docid": "547370",
"title": "",
"text": "A technically strong stock or market is simply a stock or market which is up-trending and has been up-trending for a while. Just as a fundamentally strong stock is one with good fundamentals (a stock that is healthy and making higher profits year after year and... | [
{
"docid": "295785",
"title": "",
"text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), in... |
7526 | First time investor wanting to invest in index funds especially Vanguard | [
{
"docid": "376485",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment ... | [
{
"docid": "138383",
"title": "",
"text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy a... |
6786 | Should I invest in the pre-IPO company stock offered by my employer? | [
{
"docid": "439404",
"title": "",
"text": "Whether it's wise or not depends on what you think and what you should consider are the risks both ways. What are the risks? For Let's say that the company produces great value and its current price and initial price are well below what it's worth. By investin... | [
{
"docid": "546313",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Training8m Corporate Technologies Pty Ltd, Australia Australia ABN 48133544297 UK Company Number: 7538482 Maiden Pre-IPO offer from Training8m Corporate Technologies Pty Ltd, Australia!! Unique opportunity for investors!!! Move to a most profitable and defe... |
4520 | When the Reserve Bank determines the interest rates, do they take the house prices into account? | [
{
"docid": "377488",
"title": "",
"text": "The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market. The CPI is just one inpu... | [
{
"docid": "357103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them... |
2096 | Book capital losses in gnucash | [
{
"docid": "499454",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if... | [
{
"docid": "185983",
"title": "",
"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 re... |
678 | Loan to S-Corp cannot be paid back, how to deduct from personal taxes? | [
{
"docid": "135073",
"title": "",
"text": "Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on... | [
{
"docid": "454537",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the... |
7826 | What will happen to my shares if company delisted | [
{
"docid": "519877",
"title": "",
"text": "If they own enough shares to vote to sell, you will be paid the offer price quoted to you. At that point if you do not wish to sell your only recourse will be to file a lawsuit. This is a common tactic for significant shareholders who have a minority stake and ... | [
{
"docid": "592484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Such data is typically only available from paid sources due to the amount of research involved in determining the identity of delisted securities, surviving entities in merger scenarios, company name changes, symbol changes, listing venue changes, research of... |
9334 | No trading data other than close for a stock on a given date | [
{
"docid": "378994",
"title": "",
"text": "The last column in the source data is volume (the number of stocks that was exchanged during the day), and it also has a value of zero for that day, meaning that nobody bought or sold the stocks on that day. And since the prices are prices of transactions (the ... | [
{
"docid": "215260",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) Th... |
1718 | What exactly is the interest rate that the Fed is going to adjust? | [
{
"docid": "593251",
"title": "",
"text": "The Fed rate is so important because it sets a cost on lending institutions (banks, credit unions). It is the rate of interest that a bank gets by loaning its cash overnight to the Fed. Presumably, the Fed then loans the cash to other institutions around the wo... | [
{
"docid": "357103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them... |
2591 | What are the fundamental levels that makes a Stock Ideal? (either to sell or buy) | [
{
"docid": "349567",
"title": "",
"text": "for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and k... | [
{
"docid": "117082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people... |
7703 | Investing using leverage | [
{
"docid": "552496",
"title": "",
"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 \"\"ma... | [
{
"docid": "189894",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflow... |
7074 | How does anyone make significant money on very low volume stocks? | [
{
"docid": "39927",
"title": "",
"text": "Because swing trading isn't the only reason to buy a stock, and it's not the only way to make money on a stock. I do not have the expertise to make advice one way or the other, but I personally I feel swing trading is one of the worse ways to invest in the stoc... | [
{
"docid": "122339",
"title": "",
"text": "I thought we could have a friendly conversation, but it seems like this went out the window; I feel very comfortable given that 4 of my years at my current firms were about analyzing those fees and how open each of the firms are open about the rebates Prices, a... |
9817 | What is the compound annual growth rate of the major markets? | [
{
"docid": "370507",
"title": "",
"text": "Under construction, but here's what I have so far: Schwab Data from 1970-2012: About.com data from 1980-2012:"
},
{
"docid": "47798",
"title": "",
"text": "Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stoc... | [
{
"docid": "581776",
"title": "",
"text": "So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of vol... |
4966 | In today's low interest environment, is it generally more economical to buy or lease a new car in the US? | [
{
"docid": "383039",
"title": "",
"text": "It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you d... | [
{
"docid": "504918",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm a finance manager at a dealership. The thing that I tell people about leasing: It's good if you plan to make more money in the future. You can get a new car. The downside of leasing. When you get out of your lease you will either pay straight cash, get an... |
6301 | How to make a decision for used vs new car if I want to keep the car long term? | [
{
"docid": "359131",
"title": "",
"text": "In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now th... | [
{
"docid": "481852",
"title": "",
"text": "Without knowing the terms of the company leased car, it's hard to know if that would be preferable to purchasing a car yourself. So I'll concentrate on the two purchase options - getting a loan or paying in full from savings. If the goal is simply to minimize t... |
469 | What is the difference between a bond and a debenture? | [
{
"docid": "549432",
"title": "",
"text": "Some additional links which explain their differences. But mostly as @bstpierre says, both are very similar and in some cases the terms may be used inter changeably"
},
{
"docid": "250939",
"title": "",
"text": "Investopedia has definitions for ... | [
{
"docid": "815",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I used to work for one of the three ratings agencies. Awhile ago. First: There are lots of different ratings. The bulk of ratings are for corporate debt and public finance. So senior debentures (fixed income) and General Obligations e.g. tax-free muni bonds, res... |
806 | Trying to understand Return on Capital (Joel Greenblatt's Magic Formula version) | [
{
"docid": "557607",
"title": "",
"text": "Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should... | [
{
"docid": "472011",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will add another point to ChrisinEdmonton's answer... I recognize that this is perhaps appropriate as a comment--or maybe 1/2 of an answer, but the comment formatting is inadequate for what I want to say. The magic formula that you need to understand is th... |
9991 | Must a company have a specific number of employees to do an IPO? | [
{
"docid": "388575",
"title": "",
"text": "While there is no legal reason to have a minimum number of employees, there can be a practical reason. They want to look like a good solid investment so that investors will give them money, which is what an IPO is, really. Hiring lots of people is part of th... | [
{
"docid": "313899",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to... |
10149 | How are exchange rates decided for each country? | [
{
"docid": "321842",
"title": "",
"text": "Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 ... | [
{
"docid": "179073",
"title": "",
"text": "Foreign stocks have two extra sources of risk attached to them; exchange rate and political. Exchange rate risk is obvious; if I buy a stock in a foreign currency and there is a currency movement that makes that investment worth less I lose money no matter wha... |
2814 | Is there lesser or no tax on assets? | [
{
"docid": "57263",
"title": "",
"text": "\"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety... | [
{
"docid": "236732",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The 529 plan does outline your scenarios. There are stipulations for providing the funds should the child get the scholarship. If the child decides not to go into further education (vocational and community schools count), the money can be withdrawn with a 10... |
7769 | Can capital gains be used to fund an IRA with tax advantages? | [
{
"docid": "448038",
"title": "",
"text": "\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, ... | [
{
"docid": "587727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirem... |
6310 | How do I pick the right company for investing services? | [
{
"docid": "536990",
"title": "",
"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 fu... | [
{
"docid": "410322",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since I, personally, agree with the investment thesis of Peter Schiff, I would take that sum and put it with him in a managed account, and leave it there. I'm not sure how to find a firm that you like the investment strategy of. I think that it's too complic... |
7358 | Why don't brokerages charge commissions on forex trades? | [
{
"docid": "35340",
"title": "",
"text": "Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all inv... | [
{
"docid": "8861",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of intere... |
5028 | Is it wise to invest in bond fund when interest rates are low? | [
{
"docid": "506298",
"title": "",
"text": "This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "342485",
"title": "",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in p... |
6772 | How to make an investment in a single company's stock while remaining market-neutral? | [
{
"docid": "528754",
"title": "",
"text": "You can employ a hedging strategy using short selling, put options, or other methods that will partially neutralize your exposure to the overall market. e.g. You could short sell a market-wide index such as the S&P500, while going long (buying) the company yo... | [
{
"docid": "513658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". D... |
440 | What forms do I need to fill out for a super basic LLC closing? | [
{
"docid": "34087",
"title": "",
"text": "If it is a sole proprietorship and you didn't make another mistake by explicitly asking the IRS to treat it as a corporation - there are no IRS forms to fill. You'll need to dissolve the LLC with your State, though, check the State's department of State/Corpora... | [
{
"docid": "564475",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blan... |
44 | Borrow money to invest in a business venture with equity? | [
{
"docid": "385881",
"title": "",
"text": "It's clearly a risk, but is it any different than investing in your own business? Yes, it is different. If you own a business, you determine the path of the business. You determine how much risk the business takes. You can put in extra effort to try to make ... | [
{
"docid": "48569",
"title": "",
"text": "Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expens... |
3944 | Is 0% credit card utilization worse than 1-20% credit card utilization for any reason other than pure statistics? | [
{
"docid": "75300",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use c... | [
{
"docid": "477656",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1 - yes, it's fine to pay in full and it helps your score. 2 - see chart above, it's calculated based on what the bill shows each month. 3 - answered by chart. 1-19% utilization is ideal. 0% is actually worse than 41-60% Note: The above image was from Credit... |
3797 | Jointly filing taxes in 2 different states | [
{
"docid": "300133",
"title": "",
"text": "Both states will want to tax you. Your tax home is where you maintain a domicile, are registered to vote, etc. and you will probably want to keep this as MA since you state that MA is your permanent residence and you are staying in a rented place in PA. But be ... | [
{
"docid": "502267",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account. If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return. Then the bene... |
3802 | Separate bank account for security deposit from tenant | [
{
"docid": "181616",
"title": "",
"text": "Per Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 8-203: (d) (1) (i) The landlord shall maintain all security deposits in federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, which do business in the State.... | [
{
"docid": "21598",
"title": "",
"text": "Much information comes from this source. Your tags say you are in New York. New York security deposit law requires that you store the security deposit in a banking institution. Additionally, the deposit must be stored in a separate account, not your own personal... |
6344 | Getting money from online websites I own to my UK bank account | [
{
"docid": "128322",
"title": "",
"text": "Now i want to get this money in my new UK bank account, does this mean that gov will take taxes from this money as well. Yes that is income and you have to pay tax on that. But it might be a bit complicated than that, so I would ask you to call up HMRC or visit... | [
{
"docid": "72375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think your best bet here would be HSBC. They will provide the required currencies, credit/debit cards, and very easy to use online banking transfers. This includes an online \"\"Global Account View\"\" which features all of your accounts on a single screen... |
3507 | What happens if futures contract seller defaults? | [
{
"docid": "526329",
"title": "",
"text": "\"MD-Tech answered: The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc... | [
{
"docid": "285176",
"title": "",
"text": "The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far. We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government ... |
2303 | Does high inflation help or hurt companies with huge cash reserves? | [
{
"docid": "281099",
"title": "",
"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 ea... | [
{
"docid": "446853",
"title": "",
"text": "Well one of the main problems is the unsteady purchasing power of the money, and the unwillingness of the federal reserve to allow anything less than 2-3% inflation, when deleveraging requires deflation. A lot of problem is also regime uncertainty. Companies wi... |
9936 | Why do people invest in mutual fund rather than directly buying shares? | [
{
"docid": "18502",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some l... | [
{
"docid": "186538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or... |
3212 | Legality of facilitating currency exchange between private accounts | [
{
"docid": "63666",
"title": "",
"text": "Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a busine... | [
{
"docid": "310748",
"title": "",
"text": "Be aware that ATM withdrawals often generate hidden fees, which are not obviously declared. Many banks operate e.g. with a currency exchange fee, giving you an exchange rate some 1-2% lower than actually applicable. If you withdraw larger amounts, such a curren... |
5986 | Is forward P/E calculated using current price(if yes, how useful is it)? | [
{
"docid": "593035",
"title": "",
"text": "P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't gene... | [
{
"docid": "491358",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio,... |
9558 | What tax can I expect on US stocks in a UK ISA? | [
{
"docid": "447197",
"title": "",
"text": "See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can... | [
{
"docid": "206483",
"title": "",
"text": "Technically, the answer is no, you can't put more money in to that ISA in that tax year once you've transferred it (unless you've transferred it to a Stocks and Shares ISA). FAQs 7 and 8 from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm cover these cases: Q. I have tran... |
745 | Can I pay estimated taxes based on last year's taxes if I anticipate more income this year? | [
{
"docid": "191965",
"title": "",
"text": "You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimat... | [
{
"docid": "127974",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on l... |
10700 | why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? | [
{
"docid": "112231",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people... | [
{
"docid": "466626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more... |
9091 | Why do people sell when demand pushes share price up? | [
{
"docid": "153559",
"title": "",
"text": "You are assuming the price increase will continue. The people selling are assuming that the price increase will not continue. Ultimately that's what a share transaction is: one person would rather have the cash at a particular price / time, and one person woul... | [
{
"docid": "404529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical trad... |
5167 | What is an accounting term that factors growth as a function of time and discount rate? | [
{
"docid": "130695",
"title": "",
"text": "Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rat... | [
{
"docid": "111867",
"title": "",
"text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that bec... |
6205 | Shorting stocks: Indicators that a stock will drop? | [
{
"docid": "327814",
"title": "",
"text": "First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your tar... | [
{
"docid": "499811",
"title": "",
"text": "Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people... |
6760 | What are the tax implications of earnings from the stock market (BSE)? | [
{
"docid": "423929",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the... | [
{
"docid": "322838",
"title": "",
"text": "How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfe... |
530 | why is buying trading-stock from cash not regarded as an expense? | [
{
"docid": "393483",
"title": "",
"text": "Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it ... | [
{
"docid": "429418",
"title": "",
"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 exa... |
1131 | Do I qualify for a personal 401-K Plan? | [
{
"docid": "367577",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k). http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php \"\"To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility require... | [
{
"docid": "489790",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any pen... |
7323 | Placing bid in market price | [
{
"docid": "538915",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants... | [
{
"docid": "494727",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dime... |
8336 | Possible to purchase multiple securities on 1 transaction? | [
{
"docid": "88869",
"title": "",
"text": "No you can't, as you would have to have a different order for each security. Usually the bigger the order the more the brokerage you would also pay."
},
{
"docid": "81441",
"title": "",
"text": "There is such a thing as a buy-write, which is buyi... | [
{
"docid": "341699",
"title": "",
"text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so... |
1084 | Insurance for a house which is not homeowners insurance? | [
{
"docid": "518949",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you need will depend on a number of factors that aren't clear from the question. This coverage is simply called \"\"Vacant home insurance\"\", but not all companies are willing to offer this coverage. Unfortunately, in New York, insurers can also legally... | [
{
"docid": "65344",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason people buy earthquake insurance is not because normal insurance goes straight to the lender (it does not) but because oftentimes earthquake damage is not covered under normal homeowner's insurance. Natural disasters are often not covered under regular... |
7681 | JCI headache part 1: How to calculate cost basis / tax consequences of JCI -> TYC merger? | [
{
"docid": "307602",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I finally found it! Johnson Controls International PLC FORM 8-K/A (Amended Current report filing) Filed 10/03/16 for the Period Ending 09/02/16 from http://investors.johnsoncontrols.com/financial-information/johnson-sec-filings, says on page II-6: (my emphasi... | [
{
"docid": "227518",
"title": "",
"text": "I am using the same logic as the two answers above. I got almost the same result ($46.60 instead of $46.59 per share) using the sold fractional share basis. However, the JCI Qualified Dividend (on the 1099-DIV, not the 1099-B) divided by the number of shares sp... |
6923 | Getting correlation from regression slope (Completely stumped) | [
{
"docid": "272190",
"title": "",
"text": "I just used the formula in below link and did some math. I have that book too but haven't looked at it yet really. Lots of maths to have fun with. Let me know if this is correct or needs fixing. Source: http://wiki.fool.com/How_to_Calculate_Beta_From_Volatil... | [
{
"docid": "21530",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Calculating beta is finding the correlation between the dependent variable, MSCI world benchmark, and the independent variable, your companies. If you know how to run liner regression models, run each company as the independent variable with the dependent MSCI... |
5425 | Keeping our current home (second property) as a rental. Will it interfere with purchasing a third home? | [
{
"docid": "465648",
"title": "",
"text": "Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share. A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, an... | [
{
"docid": "30352",
"title": "",
"text": "I like precious metals and real estate. For the OP's stated timeframe and the effects QE is having on precious metals, physical silver is not a recommended short term play. If you believe that silver prices will fall as QE is reduced, you may want to consider an... |
3133 | VAT & Tax implications of selling software | [
{
"docid": "156405",
"title": "",
"text": "Not sure where the confusion is coming from - software/digital/intangible goods are just like any other product, with regard to VAT. Turns out it's being made complicated by HMRC... Anyone would think they enjoy making everyone who collects tax for free on thei... | [
{
"docid": "42924",
"title": "",
"text": "If you mostly do work for businesses/individuals who are VAT registered it's a no-brainer to become VAT registered yourself... Although you will have to charge your customers VAT (and pass this on to HMRC) because they are VAT-registered they will reclaim the am... |
7998 | logistical details of interest and dividend payments on assets traded on the secondary market? | [
{
"docid": "36251",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds ... | [
{
"docid": "451301",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured a... |
5187 | Payroll taxes on exercised stock options | [
{
"docid": "203334",
"title": "",
"text": "To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they d... | [
{
"docid": "193717",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. Y... |
796 | US tax - effectively connected income | [
{
"docid": "46791",
"title": "",
"text": "\"ECI is relevant to non-resident aliens who are engaged in trade or business in the US. For that, you have to be present in the US, to begin with, or to own a business or property in the US. So the people to whom it is relevant are non-resident aliens in the US... | [
{
"docid": "493160",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not ... |
2729 | How do I get into investing in stocks? | [
{
"docid": "182511",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Read \"\"The intelligent Investor\"\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a di... | [
{
"docid": "47973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they ... |
5055 | Does re-financing an FHA-insured mortgage incur the UFMIP again? | [
{
"docid": "465905",
"title": "",
"text": "When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you a... | [
{
"docid": "472915",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One additional penalty is you will be put on the CAIVRS (\"\"cavers\"\") for your default on the FHA mortgage which will preclude you from FHA financing in the future. When purchasing the multifamily unit it is an FHA requirement that you occupy one of the un... |
8215 | Where to invest, that compounds interest more than annual? | [
{
"docid": "402633",
"title": "",
"text": "Securities (things you can buy on the stock market) that pay dividends usually pay every quarter (every three months), but some pay every month. (For example: PGF pays dividends each month.) IF you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you will be c... | [
{
"docid": "187583",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Yo... |
5381 | Question about large capital gain | [
{
"docid": "123053",
"title": "",
"text": "How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax bene... | [
{
"docid": "193485",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distr... |
2182 | Property Trust - who or what is the Owner? | [
{
"docid": "566926",
"title": "",
"text": "The trust owns the property, the trustees control the property and the beneficiaries receive any income from rent or gains from sale of property."
},
{
"docid": "539752",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am not a lawyer, and I am assuming trusts in the... | [
{
"docid": "91045",
"title": "",
"text": "There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons. But to answer your questions, value is... |
1548 | How profitable is selling your customer base? | [
{
"docid": "599376",
"title": "",
"text": "but what about non-identifying information like emails or even telephone numbers? Are you allowed to do this? Most countries have privacy laws that would explicitly forbid companies from selling data not just to other companies, but even to other divisions with... | [
{
"docid": "161034",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's what modern advertising is based on. They're not selling you a product. They're selling you a \"\"new you.\"\" Modern advertising is based on the erroneous assumption that by buying the product your personality and lifestyle will improve and the customer... |
752 | Are services provided to Google employees taxed as income or in any way? | [
{
"docid": "250198",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(Regarding one aspect of the question) Here's a survey suggesting new programmers value \"\"free lunch\"\", old programmers do not care about it: https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/06/12/new-kids-block-understanding-developers-entering-workforce-today/?cb=1\""
... | [
{
"docid": "133020",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is what I was able to find: Yes, but there are special instructions for minors: Working hours: New York State labor laws are slightly more strict than the federal: https://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/nyvsfed.shtm Minimum ... |
6819 | How can one identify institutional accumulation of a particular stock using price and volume data? | [
{
"docid": "378342",
"title": "",
"text": "You can have a pretty good guess by looking at price pattern and order flow (size of the trades) a) price should be traded in a range b) relatively large size orders, speed."
},
{
"docid": "375161",
"title": "",
"text": "A couple ways, but its n... | [
{
"docid": "85484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. ... |
8272 | Is my employee stock purchase plan a risk free investment? | [
{
"docid": "194359",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know what restrictions are put on the average employee at your company. In my case, we were told we were not permitted to either short the stock, or to trade in it options. That said, I was successful shorting the exact number of shares I'd be buying a... | [
{
"docid": "528699",
"title": "",
"text": "There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ES... |
8545 | Is the Investopedia simulator an accurate representation of real stock trading? | [
{
"docid": "97180",
"title": "",
"text": "Using any simulator will never be exactly the same as real trading. One reason is that a simulator will always execute your trades at the exact price you want, but that may not always happen in real life. For example, if you place a limit order to buy 1000 shar... | [
{
"docid": "216964",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't predict when to buy a stock during the day to guarantee not having a loss for the day. In the short run stock prices are really pretty random. There are many day traders who try to accomplish exactly this and most of them lose money. If you don't beli... |
6502 | Do “Instant Approved” credit card inquires appear on credit report? | [
{
"docid": "187835",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, they do. Generally though you'll only see it on one or two reports. With regards to the impact on your credit score. Hard inquiries only stay on your credit for 2 years, after that they fall off. For most credit scores (specifically FICO) they only have ... | [
{
"docid": "230297",
"title": "",
"text": "\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evide... |
2696 | Can I prove having savings without giving out the account number? | [
{
"docid": "390446",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't."
},
{
"docid": "96538",
"title": "",
"t... | [
{
"docid": "549437",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How can someone use the account number to withdraw money without my consent? They can use your account number to game your banks phone support and try to phish their way into your account. Banks have gotten very good at combating this, but theoretically wit... |
4510 | GBP savings, what to do with them if leaving the U.K. in about 2 years time? | [
{
"docid": "205685",
"title": "",
"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 conver... | [
{
"docid": "293152",
"title": "",
"text": "One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, bett... |
6617 | (How) can I print my own checks on my printer on regular paper? | [
{
"docid": "384251",
"title": "",
"text": "There are certain standards that modern checks need to meet. These aren't required by law, but banks today generally insist on them. If you are able to meet these standards and print your own checks at home, you are allowed to do so. One way this is commonly do... | [
{
"docid": "500403",
"title": "",
"text": "Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Yea... |
3017 | What are the real risks in “bio-technology” companies? | [
{
"docid": "183999",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was perfor... | [
{
"docid": "263809",
"title": "",
"text": "1. Read history (Money of the Mind, Lords of Finance, bios of volker/greenspan, Against the Gods, Monetary History of the US, Citibank 1812-1970, If There Were No Losses, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital) 2. Learn Python 3. Take accounting classe... |
1484 | If one owns 75% of company shares, does that mean that he would have to take upon himself 75% of the company's expenses? | [
{
"docid": "409133",
"title": "",
"text": "Together the founders represent 100% of the outstanding stock, so they can do it however they like."
},
{
"docid": "204169",
"title": "",
"text": "A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to part... | [
{
"docid": "121622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made. If Jack is the sole owner o... |
505 | static data for mutual funds/hedge funds | [
{
"docid": "154014",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's not really my field, but I believe it's all the information that doesn't change (i.e. isn't \"\"real-time\"\") about the business of hedge funds. For example, this site quotes: The product maintains comprehensive static data records including assets, ... | [
{
"docid": "68325",
"title": "",
"text": ">Nearly 20 years ago in the book Market Wizards, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt said the term hedge funds is a misnomer because most funds don’t hedge, and a new name is almost 2 decades overdue. The more apt titles such as Alt In or absolute return fu... |
7084 | Asset management after leaving the USA | [
{
"docid": "96850",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes to all three. However,"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "498955",
"title": "",
"text": "You should really talk to a lawyer about criminal concerns. There may be some. Does USA credit score transfer to other countries? The USA doesn't do anything with credit scores. In the USA credit records are maintained by private companies who provide the infor... |
4709 | Corporate Finance | [
{
"docid": "297385",
"title": "",
"text": "Your company wants to raise $25,000,000 for a new project, but flotation costs are incurred by issuing securities (underwriting, legal fees, etc) First you must determine how much of the $25,000,000 is going to be debt and equity. The company's target D/E ratio... | [
{
"docid": "104448",
"title": "",
"text": "Since I got downvoted for poking fun at > I've come to realize I don't really enjoy the engineering aspects of my job nor the industry, but I enjoy corporate culture. Here's some info for those actually interested: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums... |
10663 | Borrow from 401k for down payment on rental property? | [
{
"docid": "329180",
"title": "",
"text": "Two simple possibilities:"
},
{
"docid": "353415",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with \"\"checkbook privileges\"\". Tha... | [
{
"docid": "550420",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As I understand it, if the \"\"borrower\"\" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the \"\"borrower\"\" own the home jointly as tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The \"\"borrower\"\" moves in... |
5657 | How can I determine how much my car insurance will cost me? | [
{
"docid": "487010",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't be afraid to shop around. Every couple of years when it's time to renew my auto insurance I call a couple of places to see if I can get a better deal. It's especially important to do this as you get older (because your rates go down assuming you keep a cl... | [
{
"docid": "116545",
"title": "",
"text": "There are, of course, many possible financial emergencies. They range from large medical expenses to losing your job to being sued to major home or car repairs to who-knows-what. I suppose some people are in a position where the chances that they will face any ... |
1660 | Why can we cancel cheques, but not Western Union transfers? | [
{
"docid": "134385",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are presuming that after the transfer, the cash is still \"\"sitting in a Western Union register\"\" but no, that cash may have already been taken by the fraudster. To refund the victim, Western Union would have to (1) pay the victim back the amount of mo... | [
{
"docid": "456773",
"title": "",
"text": "Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a R... |
4856 | Car value is almost equal to GMFV with still 2 years to go on PCP | [
{
"docid": "573617",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The \"\"guaranteed minimum future value\"\" isn't really a guarantee so much as the amount they will charge you at the end of the agreement if you want to keep the car. In this sense it might better be considered a \"\"guaranteed maximum future cost\"\". If t... | [
{
"docid": "305153",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Now, to buy in full (and essentially have zero savings), buy in part (£10000 deposit, followed by a loan of £4000) or PCP/HP more of the value? So, you are assessing if the car is worth having with either none or only 4,000 in savings. This is the most critic... |
8793 | When's the best time to sell the stock of a company that is being acquired/sold? | [
{
"docid": "68515",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here is one \"\"other consideration\"\": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can... | [
{
"docid": "484307",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally wh... |
2566 | Purpose of having good credit when you are well-off? | [
{
"docid": "40665",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your dad may have paid an \"\"opportunity cost\"\" for that outright purchase. If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money. If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible. My own fathe... | [
{
"docid": "585288",
"title": "",
"text": "I also had a student loan and glad you are taking a good look on interest rate as it really makes a huge difference. One of the strategies I followed was since my credit improved as I stepped out of school. I took advantage of a good 0 percent credit card. I ap... |
6753 | Standardized loan options to purchase employee stock options | [
{
"docid": "259072",
"title": "",
"text": "What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less... | [
{
"docid": "220147",
"title": "",
"text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder ... |
6495 | What financial data are analysed (and how) to come up with a stock recommendation? | [
{
"docid": "121765",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite ... | [
{
"docid": "281763",
"title": "",
"text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses... |
7435 | If a fund holds stocks paying dividends and doesn't give a payout, is it necessarily re investing those dividends? | [
{
"docid": "226967",
"title": "",
"text": "It is not necessary that the mutual fund pays out the dividend. The money would be used to buy more shares of the same stock or of some other stock depending on overall policy goal of the fund and current allocation of funds. This would increase the NAV of the ... | [
{
"docid": "3118",
"title": "",
"text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest... |
7294 | Direct access to the currency exchange market | [
{
"docid": "10726",
"title": "",
"text": "Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is s... | [
{
"docid": "294718",
"title": "",
"text": "Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange ... |
4765 | Where do I-Bonds fit into personal finance plans? | [
{
"docid": "207779",
"title": "",
"text": "tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit... | [
{
"docid": "451301",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured a... |
2062 | How would I use Google Finance to find financial data about LinkedIn & its stock? | [
{
"docid": "150535",
"title": "",
"text": "It's been traded publicly for only about a month. I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet."
},
{
"docid": "94792",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Remembe... | [
{
"docid": "387767",
"title": "",
"text": "Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually ... |
612 | Can we amend last year's Schedule C to indicate reduced income due to a customer refund this year for a product we sold last year? | [
{
"docid": "362060",
"title": "",
"text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring t... | [
{
"docid": "312493",
"title": "",
"text": "When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received i... |
9301 | TDAmeritrade Quote Summary TREE vs APRN | [
{
"docid": "519885",
"title": "",
"text": "I suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period. So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires ... | [
{
"docid": "416390",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/06/02/carbon-capture-plant-bad-investment/) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Although we can&#039;t compare the costs because Climeworks doesn&#039;t... |
7490 | Clarify on some Stocks Terminology | [
{
"docid": "173836",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million tota... | [
{
"docid": "61103",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split. That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Spli... |
10061 | What are reasons a company would want to be listed on one exchange vs. another? | [
{
"docid": "474279",
"title": "",
"text": "Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensa... | [
{
"docid": "127578",
"title": "",
"text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bank... |
5142 | How do I set up my finances when first moving out? | [
{
"docid": "154714",
"title": "",
"text": "The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in ... | [
{
"docid": "356515",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transacti... |
10301 | What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? | [
{
"docid": "363899",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from t... | [
{
"docid": "160623",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for infla... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.