Split (1)

train · 418k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 6 5.38k	positive_passages listlengths 1 22	negative_passages listlengths 9 100	subset stringclasses 7 values
cd5b80012f27d57512b38ea0526a47b8	Does a SIM only cell phone contract help credit rating?	[ { "docid": "cc0e489fbb93500c2943f2744bbcc5e7", "text": "I have never seen any of my mobile phone providers report any data to any credit agency. They tend to only do that if you don't pay on time. Maybe sometimes it helps, but from my experience over the last decade - it must be some very rare times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5d5c06f4b05054379ca1ade57ba80b7", "text": "I'm not sure if there are nuances between countries and appreciate your question is specifically about the US, but in the UK, mobile phone contracts, including SIM only, as seen by the chat in this experion website chat shows that mobile contracts are included in credit ratings for 6 years.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4e137c5118857ce78a598f8de95d17a1", "text": "\"It appears that you already know this, but FICO credit scores (as controlled by Fair Isaac Corporation) are the real official credit scores, and FICO takes a cut on their production no matter which of the 3 major credit bureaus calculates the official score (all using slightly different methods). Be careful when obtaining a score for making a big decision that it is a FICO score, because relatively few lenders will lend based on a non-FICO score. That said, some non-FICO scores are easy to obtain and can be roughly translated to an approximation of your score. Barclays US/ Juniper Bank credit cards offer a free Transunion \"\"TransRisk\"\"(TM) score. The TransRisk score is a 900 point scale, while the FICO score is an 850 point scale. This is a simple ratio and you can calculate your approximate FICO score by the formula:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a", "text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7a2a240a86664d6f18364f20a1d5229", "text": "Specific to the inquiries, from my Impact of Credit Inquiries article - 8 is at the high end pulling your score down until some time passes. As MB stated, long term expanding your credit will help, but short term, it's a bit of a hit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c862ffa8adba84464ca1c38d3b51cec4", "text": "Yes, there is. I was a victim of Experian's breach last year. The only thing these credit reporting agencies sell is their opinion. If their opinion is not worth shit because they are compromised, then what they sell has little value. Next time you hear a lender explaining to you this credit score thingy, ask them if they still remember how to underwrite without it, because it is going away. They will look at you and try to carefully explain its importance, but you are under no obligation to believe them. Tell them COBOL sucks, and so does much of the '80s music they still listen to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb7a7cd5bd0ca3f03ebe2c68702097f3", "text": "\"In the other question, the OP had posted a screenshot (circa 2010) from Transunion with suggestions on how to improve the OP's credit score. One of these suggestions was to obtain \"\"retail revolving accounts.\"\" By this, they are referring to credit accounts from a particular retail store. Stores have been offering credit accounts for many years, and today, this usually takes the form of a store credit card. The credit card does not have the Visa or MasterCard logo on it, and is only valid at that particular store. (For example, Target has their own credit card that only works at Target stores.) The \"\"revolving\"\" part simply means that it is an open account that you can continue to make new charges and pay off, as opposed to a fixed retail financing loan (such as you might get at a high-end furniture store, where you obtain a loan for a single piece of furniture, and when it is paid off, the account is closed). The formula for credit scores are proprietary secrets. However, I haven't read anything that indicates that a store credit card helps your credit score more than a standard credit card. I suspect that Transunion was offering this tip in an attempt to give the consumer more ideas of how to add credit cards to their account that the consumer might not have thought of. But it is possible that buried deep in the credit score formula, there is something in there that gives you a higher score if you have a store credit card. As an aside, the OP in the other question had a credit score of 766 and was trying to make it higher. In my opinion, this is pointless. Remember that the financial services industry has an incentive to sell you as much debt as possible, and so all of their advice will point to you getting more credit accounts and getting more in debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ccb959cb5d4196b41ce64dfad4de64", "text": "Rating agencies should be paid on accuracy, i.e. each bond issued pays x $ into a pool, and the bond companies whom are accurate over the maturity get a share of the pool. Those whom are not, must add money to the pool. (Like an accuracy market!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73ba8044033fd37ec2ffc71db5176a75", "text": "I guess we opt in when we take out credit, or if you sign a lease or anything like that. While credit reporting is the backbone of consumer finance, im not sure exactly how it works, and this may not be the right sub. r/personalfinance may be better. If you get a good answer elsewhere I would be much obliged if you posted it back here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac6c8b4a19615ff7b2de20577028940c", "text": "A credit card can be a long running line of credit that will help to boost your FICO score. However if you have student loans, a mortgage, or car payments those will work just as well. If you ever get to the point where you don't have any recent lines of credit, this may eventually end up hurting your score, but until then you really don't need any extras.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9682391181e29e0ff28ebdd867c816e5", "text": "Your credit rating will rise once the loan is repaid or paid regularly (in time). It will not get back to normal instantly. If the property is dead weight you may want to sell it so your credit score will increase in the medium term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c", "text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001467b6ee0f5efdbd4ee55a495d55c5", "text": "Consider that however high your credit score gets, there is a 'worst piece of it'. The automated software will always report your 'weakest' two points, even if they are already at the top 0.0001% of everyone; that's just how it is coded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "720826f9bcda8f43ce64a55e6a773523", "text": "I plan to stay debt free, but I appreciate the non-debt-related advantages of having a good credit score. If you plan to stay debt-free, then opening up more cards will not significantly change your credit score. You seem to want to be going from a good score to a great score, which adding cards alone will not do. Also, I highly doubt it will significantly affect any of the five things you mention. If you had a bad credit score, then I could see some effect on renting an apartment, getting a job (where trust with money is a component of the job), etc., but don't try to game the system for some number. You won't magically get cheaper cell phone rates, lower insurance premiums, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18ca552afe0a038be9ace5190332bd8b", "text": "\"The weird thing is that if you use the credit impact simulators with the credit monitoring services, they show that the impact of paying your credit cards off completely is more negative than carrying a small balance, which doesn't make a great deal of sense, one would think. From what I can gather, the rationale is that carrying a small balance shows you making payments over time, as opposed to having a zero balance. This doesn't quite compute with me, but I don't truly understand the inner workings of the scoring models. To confirm this, I used simulators with both TransUnion and Experian, and both showed this. I know that it's easy to find people on both sides of this argument, so I can't say which is the best option (certainly whichever side someone falls on is the one they'll argue is the right one! chuckle). In all fairness, your best tool is time. The effects of your prior bad decisions will lessen over time as they move further away in your history and then disappear altogether. Obtaining a credit card just because you think you need one is not a compelling argument, by any means. If you can't rationalize reasons why you need it then maybe you should question the wisdom of such a decision. If you don't have a particular need for better credit right now, why be in a hurry to take on debt? Whatever the formulas are for calculating credit scores, the specific details are a pretty closely-guarded secret (they're proprietary for starters, plus it theoretically prevents people from \"\"gaming the system\"\" for a better score), but if you do enough research online, you can get a pretty good sense of how they work in general. Whatever you do with your credit should be in line with your overall financial goals. If you want to remain debt-free (at least for now) then having a credit card you can't otherwise justify a need for just introduces temptations which could prove tough to resist (\"\"wants\"\" quickly turn into \"\"needs\"\" when you can put it on a card you pay later), then you're right back in the same place you were earlier in your life. Instead of trying to figure out the \"\"best strategy\"\" for a credit card, first ask yourself how necessary it is to you right now in light of your financial objectives, then go from there. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83dfb8bae683361cff5422a87ac9b70", "text": "\"The fact that you pay the bill reliably is going to count more for your credit rating than anything else, even if you are paying it off in full every month. Lenders seem to like to see at least one instance where you charged a large balance, held it a couple months, then paid it off in full... but I wouldn't go out of my way to do that. Remember that the credit card company is making money on transaction fees as well as interest. If you're pushing money through their system, they're happy. They'd be happier if you were paying them interest too -- reportedly, they actually refer to those of us who pay in full every month as \"\"deadbeats\"\" -- but they aren't going to kick you out or ding your credit rating for it. The quote you give says that a small balance \"\"may be slightly better\"\". I submit that \"\"may be slightly\"\" is too small a difference to be worth worrying about, unless you have reason to believe that your credit rating actively needs to be repaired. (And as noted in the comments, it's actually stated even less strongly than that!) Personal recommendation: You can get a free credit report each year from each of the \"\"big three\"\" credit rating agencies. Those reports usually include a brief explanation of what they think the most negative item on your record is. The phrasing of those explanations is often somewhat misleading, but I'd still suggest that you get these reports and see what they think would improve your rating. I'm willing to bet it won't be \"\"doesn't carry a high enough debt balance.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a7deb3d6c5891fea008a3d261740e7d", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fcf4d2721cbc50c8e259df1b2fb26f55	What scrutiny to expect if making large purchase with physical cash? [duplicate]	[ { "docid": "4611b10dcda9bdcf2a448ddfd061e57b", "text": "http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/buying-house-with-cash/ It looks like you can, but it's a bad idea because you lack protection of a receipt, there's no record of you actually giving the money over, and the money would need to be counted - bill by bill - which increases time and likelihood of error. In general, paying large amounts in cash won't bring up any scrutiny because there's no record. How can the IRS scrutinize something that it can't know about? Of course, if you withdraw 200k from your bank account, or deposit 200k into it then the government would know and it would certainly be flagged as suspicious.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "40f9e55d3cf2caa66995bade903e3711", "text": "Contrary to what many people think, credit card companies pass nearly all fraud costs via purchased goods onto the merchant who sells them. As a result, they stand a very high chance of getting the money from a fraudulent purchase of a specific purchased item back, as they just chargeback the merchant who has to stomach the cost. This is not the case for cash transactions obviously, where as soon as the money leaves the ATM fraudulently it is as good as gone. As a result, the risk profile of the two types of transaction is wildly different, and the credit limits of each reflect this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85110d666ba177dfbde6ed4aae613120", "text": "Yes, truckloads of cash. /s It's exactly the same as your example, when people say to pay for a car in cash, they don't meany physical bills, but rather the idea that you aren't getting a loan. In most acquisitions, the buyer will usually pay with their own stock, pay in cash, or a combination of both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48", "text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "597fbba980d57f15eb40096d787f787b", "text": "There's still a paper trail for every transaction. There's gotta be a debit and credit in there somewhere. Plus these companies are supposed to be audited by an independent auditor who, if they're worth their salt, should be able to track down every penny.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb35e4c709e2404f635fc3ed13dff11", "text": "Online groceries in Kolkata can put a conclusion to feared treks to the market. There are administrations that ship staple goods the nation over and a few chains utilize nearby conveyance too. This can spare us huge amounts of time, and that itself is justified regardless of its ruler's payment. In any case, can shopping on the web market in Kolkata preserve us cash? Regularly it can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5872e8838dd566d2d09dbda706f71e4", "text": "There should be no problems with CBP; they'll take the form and may ask some questions, but it is completely legal. I would be worried to carry so much cash around though, and many places might not readily accept cash. You cannot rent a car (without a huge cash deposit), and you cannot book hotels or anything else online with the cash. If you have any way to have a credit card, prefer that. If this is not possible consider even buying a refillable card in a supermarket after arrival.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fdd4f09855ddcd6cdc153c4d6a7f45f", "text": "Beside standard Swift (which may be registered and checked for money laundering) there are the money transfer companies (Western Union) and the electronic currencies like bitcoin. Besides that is buying something very expensive (gold / diamonds) and sell them again a possibility to transport vast amount of value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "969778faec1250232e0b31c8475c279d", "text": "\"Let me do the math. .6% * (not large) = really tiny. Since \"\"not large\"\" = \"\"small\"\" , etc. I suggest that even a small chance that you need to explain this to anyone in the future is a sign to avoid the risk. Yes, there are times that it's illegal. A real estate office may not deposit escrow funds into anything but a segregated escrow account. In your case, even if legal, it messes up 'the books' and can cost you more in grief than the 'tiny amount' saves you in cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1246ac2c44c05963a52453c41123bfd", "text": "Possible ways they could make money (or think they could): I would go back through your transaction history and see if it's disappeared. Even with an assumed-rubbish interface finding a reversal of the transaction should be easy as you know the amount. I wouldn't spend it for a very long time if it is still there, just in case my last bullet applies. Given what they knew about you (phone number and account details) I'd be wary enough to keep an eye on all my accounts, possibly wary enough to consider credit monitoring in case they try to open other accounts with your details. Although of course plenty of people have legitimate reasons to have this information - if you've written a cheque the account details will be on it, and you might well be in the phone book or otherwise searchable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f71e16876c49a2516f62da64a0d1f7c0", "text": "\"It's worth pointing out that most \"\"cash\"\" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b95e7286d3620036ce1d7a554eb8d328", "text": "Well, it really doesn't make sense to pay for either in cash. For these purchases, unless you're super wealthy, you won't be paying it in full. If you were to pay in full, then I don't see any practical point to withdraw that money in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1969206b2133cfe3e0d1ff515eb4a770", "text": "Making a payment of any amount is usually legal, although of course the specific circumstances matter, and I'm not qualified to give legal advice. Just had to throw in that disclaimer not because I think there's a problem here, but because it is impossible to give a definite answer to a legal question in a specific situation on Stack Exchange. But the government will be involved. There are two parts to that. First, as part of anti-money-laundering laws, banks have to report all transactions above a certain limit; I believe $10k. When you use a check or similar to pay, that happens pretty much automatically. When making a cash payment, you may have to fill out some forms. An secondly, Edward Snowden revealed that the government also tapped into banking networks, so pretty much every transaction is recorded, even if it is not reportable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c7a46fe492c59213577f579bccc7310", "text": "Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17e6cb39363323512e4c56d5b0e5e694", "text": "Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b4a5fff5ef3a98fcf333a137464c7af", "text": "Deliberately breaking transactions into smaller units to avoid reporting requirements is called structuring and may attract the attention of the IRS and/or law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure what the specific laws are on structuring with respect to FBAR reporting requirements and/or electronic transfers (as opposed to cash transactions). However, there's been substantial recent publicity about cases where people had their assets seized simply because federal agents suspected they were trying to avoid reporting requirements (even if there was no hard evidence of this). It is safer not to risk it. Don't try to structure your transactions to avoid the reporting requirements.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c7e597dd813bcc211c64e76bad9616b3	Can I get a mortgage from a foreign bank?	[ { "docid": "7abd742d4a5146989505e42d26abfeba", "text": "\"Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling \"\"foreign currency mortgage\"\", \"\"international mortgage\"\", or \"\"overseas mortgage\"\" gets you loads of starting points. I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be \"\"classified\"\" as a \"\"normal\"\" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbcfdd2fccff5c1708bebc49a7ad5d43", "text": "You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c0e7a965e82c1984ba0795078090e9f8", "text": "I am wondering weather it is worth it (how taxation works in this scenario ect.) or not and legally possible to do so ? Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. There's nothing illegal in this, unless of course there's a legal issue in the foreign country. The US doesn't care. Re taxes - it is a bit trickier. If your lender does not provide you with form 1098, you'll have to report the lender's name, address and SSN/ITIN on your tax return in order to claim a deduction. The IRS will then expect the lender to report that interest as income. This is US-sourced income and is taxed in the US despite the fact that the lender is non-resident. See here for more info. If the lender doesn't report the income and doesn't pay the taxes - your deduction may be denied as well for double-dipping. It is easier if this is an investment. Then the deduction is not going to Schedule A, but rather as an expense to Schedule E. The IRS may still require matching, but you won't need to report the SSN/ITIN - just have the expense properly documented. Obviously, the best when it comes to legal issues, is to talk to an attorney licensed in the State in question. Similarly with tax questions - you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in that State. I'm neither.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14b1bc4d3cbbf1cde474d5ffda18cb1f", "text": "My mortgage is with WF. I want to get away from them. I'm going to try to move in a year or two, and then I'll make sure I never touch them again. I have an account with a credit union. I'll be transferring everything over to there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dde74392ae43418f5636c60a710d5c6", "text": "\"I'm not aware that any US bank has any way to access your credit rating in France (especially as you basically don't have one!). In the US, banks are not the only way to get finance for a home. In many regions, there are plenty of \"\"owner financed\"\" or \"\"Owner will carry\"\" homes. For these, the previous owner will provide a private mortgage for the balance if you have a large (25%+) downpayment. No strict lending rules, no fancy credit scoring systems, just a large enough downpayment so they know they'll get their money back if they have to foreclose. For the seller, it's a way to shift a house that is hard to sell plus get a regular income. Often this mortgage is for only 3-10 years, but that gives you the time to establish more credit and then refinance. Maybe the interest rate is a little higher also, but again it's just until you can refinance to something better (or sell other assets then pay the loan off quick). For new homes, the builders/developers may offer similar finance. For both owner-will-carry and developer finance, a large deposit will trump any credit rating concerns. There is usually a simplified foreclosure process, so they're not really taking much of a risk, so can afford to be flexible. Make sure the owner mortgage is via a title company, trust company, or escrow company, so that there's a third party involved to ensure each party lives up to their obligations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ebdef47b59f8a0bdd4e4fba0440b5b3", "text": "This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before? Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting. Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33580f0327e95b794853dd6c811a609b", "text": "Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d17ef9a66770652aa11692ef104a3cec", "text": "When getting a mortgage it always depends on the bank and each bank may be more or less strict. With that being said there are rules and general guidelines which can help you understand how you fit in the world of mortgage approvals. If you can provide the same paper work as an employee of your company that you would normally provide from any other company then a bank may just accept that alone. However to me it seems like you will be looking at a new variation of what was known as a Self-certification mortgage A self-certification mortgage is basically a mortgage for those who cannot prove their income. As a result of the housing collapse, the rules on a traditional self-cert mortgages have changed. As someone who is self employed, it is more difficult today to get a mortgage but is still possible. This article provides some good information: Can the self employed still get a mortgage? I advise doing some research on this topic and speaking with a professional mortgage broker. Some Resources: Compare Self Cert Mortgages How to beat the mortgage famine in 2012 Can the self employed still get a mortgage?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0b510c62b5a3e4373f767e7fca65d71", "text": "For what its worth, I recently closed on a 30 year refinance mortage with an agent I found through Zillow. The lender has a perfect 5/5 reputation score, whose office was located within 5 miles of my house, and as suggested by justkt on MrChrister's response, I checked out the business on the better business bureau and its online presence prior to going forward with the bank. The process was relatively painless, and the APR and closing costs were less than my previous loan with a federal credit union which I've used in the past. I can't say if the bank I'll be using going forward is as good as the one I've used in the past, but overall I'm quite happy with it. I never met the individual in person but this saved both of us a fair amount of time honestly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f200ee7a5a6d36978324a23b4718750", "text": "You cannot do this as per the reasons mentioned by others above, mainly foreign banks cannot hold mortgages over properties in other countries. If this was possible to do, don't you think many others would be applying overseas for mortgages and loans. And even if it was possible the overseas bank would give you a comparative rate to compete with the rates already offered in Australia (to compensate with the extra risks). If you cannot afford to purchase a property at record low rates of below 5% in Australia, then you may want to re-think your strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e", "text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c518372928a9ebe110d7a5c884e5c820", "text": "I am only familiar with American banks, but generally speaking, they will work with you if you can demonstrate that you have an adequate average income over a period of time. It is likely they will want a record of your income for at least the last 24 months (more would be better). The terms of the individual contracts (i.e. termination clauses, etc.) shouldn't be important as long as you have a demonstrated history of making a good income. I'd recommend finding a bank that performs manual underwriting, i.e. they actually have someone on staff that will look at your credit history, income, debt ratios, as opposed to them just generating an offer based on a computer model. Lending standards can vary quite a bit from bank to bank, and you have not listed your average annual income, so it is difficult to say whether they will offer you a mortgage, or for what amount, but you have a significant down payment. However, assuming that your numbers are good and that you can find someone intelligent to work with, it's unlikely that they will deny you simply because your income is uneven. Best of luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b198461ba3b9f14c0cfd3e01b893a69", "text": "I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4868aca678dd9a4e058664e32d9ee78e", "text": "There are no particular restrictions in the UK on sending money abroad, so if you can get the loan in the first place you can send the money abroad. The main potential issue will be that many (maybe all) unsecured personal loan providers will want some indication of the purpose of the loan, and you will need to be honest with them about this or it would be fraud. As with all financial transactions with friends and family, you should think very carefully about the risks both of not getting the money back and of the impact on your relationship. Can you definitely repay the loan even if your parents don't repay you? Who will take the exchange rate risk; will your parents repay you the GBP you borrowed or the EUR you lend them? Depending on the rules in your parents' country, they will likely need to declare the source of these funds to the mortgage provider, and the mortgage provider will always have first priority in getting repaid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93a5d77409254fa60210ce84930525a", "text": "\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265", "text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4868d85aad6ffbe6e343a0ff04f49884	What taxes does a US citizen doing freelance work (self-employed) in the UK have to pay to the US government?	[ { "docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926", "text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e4a96168ebf9048f2eaba2e0c6ff53fc", "text": "\"As you said, in the US LLC is (usually, unless you elect otherwise) not a separate tax entity. As such, the question \"\"Does a US LLC owned by a non-resident alien have to pay US taxes\"\" has no meaning. A US LLC, regardless of who owns it, doesn't pay US income taxes. States are different. Some States do tax LLCs (for example, California), so if you intend to operate in such a State - you need to verify that the extra tax the LLC would pay on top of your personal tax is worth it for you. As I mentioned in the comment, you need to check your decision making very carefully. LLC you create in the US may or may not be recognized as a separate legal/tax entity in your home country. So while you neither gain nor lose anything in the US (since the LLC is transparent tax wise), you may get hit by extra taxes at home if they see the LLC as a non-transparent corporate entity. Also, keep in mind that the liability protection by the LLC usually doesn't cover your own misdeeds. So if you sell products of your own work, the LLC may end up being completely worthless and will only add complexity to your business. I suggest you check all these with a reputable attorney. Not one whose business is to set up LLCs, these are going to tell you anything you want to hear as long as you hire them to do their thing. Talk to one who will not benefit from your decision either way and can provide an unbiased advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "076e0d5e64e17e91c7161a310b3c440e", "text": "\"AFAIK, there are two kinds of taxes your web freelancing income may be subject to in Quebec: On the income taxes: The net income you realize from your web freelancing activities would be considered taxable income. Assuming you are not operating as an incorporated business, you would need to declare the freelancing income on both your federal and provincial tax returns. You should be able to deduct certain costs related to your business – for instance, if you paid for software, hosting, domain name registration, etc. That is, only the profit from your business would be subject to income tax. With income and expenses arising from self-employment, you may want to use a professional to file your taxes. On the sales taxes: You may also need to charge federal GST and provincial QST (Quebec Sales Tax) on your services: You must enroll and charge GST and QST once you exceed the \"\"small supplier\"\" revenue threshold of $30,000 measured over four consecutive quarters. (You can still choose to enroll for GST/QST before you reach that amount, but over that amount enrollment becomes mandatory. Some businesses enroll before the threshold is reached so they can claim input tax credits for tax paid on expenses, but then there's more paperwork – one reason to perhaps avoid enrolling until necessary.) In Quebec, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec administers both GST (on behalf of the federal government) as well as provincial QST. Be sure to also check out their informative booklet, Should I Register with Revenu Quebec? (PDF). See also General Information Concerning the QST and the GST/HST (PDF).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9b1750861a184a70777dda66fa97951", "text": "\"Be careful here: If ACME were in California, I would pay taxes on USD 17,000 because I had revenue of 20,000 and expenses of 3,000. To CALIFORNIA. And California taxes S-Corps. And, in addition, you'd pay $800 for the right of doing business in the State. All that in addition to the regular Federal and State taxes to the State where you're resident. Suppose that ACME is in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter). My revenue and expenses are the same, but now my money has been earned and my expenses incurred in a foreign country. Same thing exactly. Except that you'll have to pay taxes to the UK. There may be some provision in the tax treaty to help you though, so you may end up paying less taxes when working in the UK than in California. Check with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who won't run away from you after you say the words \"\"Tax Treaty\"\". Does it even make sense to use my S-Corporation to do business in a foreign country? That should be a business decision, don't let the tax considerations drive your business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa6ac06db3552d08eda4e4d6ff3339b3", "text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9589a3228d51c680546c138e8a52d9b", "text": "Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fb8ad9020bf14fbf901fe9c1f18a4c4", "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.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b785bcf974c97d43b0f71c871e9a9f2a", "text": "No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da1ec09d990e5aacc6bcce5c151bb629", "text": "If you earn money while in the US or from renting your US house - you have to pay taxes to the US on that income. If you become US tax resident - you have to pay US taxes on your worldwide income. Whether or not you're in the US illegally or receiving income while breaking any other law - doesn't matter at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24b3d060e4c23665a0a4e0e103faada2", "text": "Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13fda6e0080776cd0999f9c7dd067988", "text": "You will almost certainly be paying taxes in Czech Republic, short of being American of Eritrean, citizenship has little to no bearing on tax. If you are working from home, you will probably be a contractor. In Romania you would work through either an SRL or you would set up a PFA. Essentially a limited company or a sole trader. You will need to find the Czech equivalents. I would advise finding a small business accountant. They will be able to advise what is the most cost effective solution, in some countries (like my one) you can save considerable amounts of tax by working through a company. There is a link with some information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691b6d6029c2f362848881780986f078", "text": "I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b45e548d7249ae24266bede29b37465", "text": "I will not pay any taxes in the Us, since I am not working for an US company What you will or will not pay is up to you of course, but you definitely should pay taxes in the US, as you're working in the US. Since you mentioned being from Japan, I'll also suggest checking whether you're allowed to perform any work in the US under the conditions of your visa. If you're a F1/J1 student - you'll be breaking the immigration law and may be deported. You might be liable for taxes in Germany, as well, and also in Japan. I'll have to edit this to allow people who downvoted the answer without knowing the legal requirements to change their vote. F1 student cannot be a contractor without a valid EAD. Period. There's no doubt about it and legal requirements are pretty clear. Anyone who claims that you wouldn't be breaking the terms of your visa is wrong. Note, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional, for definite advice talk to a professional.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7e451ff517411ed28490bc8763abde4", "text": "This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eee3787af4484907157a31db91c64902", "text": "You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f395c55d7f9fd1f519a973966956ddbe", "text": "The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d3394cde3e776456408915e770942c0	Investing money 101	[ { "docid": "bb6bef38badbb80ac0351264579ffbfe", "text": "\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "967bf01a924c0fb08a38f726e314c831", "text": "As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f2b147a97db970a4c4e873963d116b", "text": "\"Well done internet stranger -- you win, if that's what you were looking for. But for giggles: First, the article inferred that Paul was a quote \"\"strict buy-and-hold investor who rarely trades.\"\" And second, if we're talking empirical evidence here then this whole post can be considered useless. Because by that logic, the same can be said about his entire portfolio - in which case, he may have simply bought all that gold the day before reporting his financials.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd", "text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0a717cb3d03349eff74c42a58816337", "text": "The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash. If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e", "text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45b1a38690b63fd53c9704a2b7767d55", "text": "\"Assuming this is real, the Q's (QQQ) is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq-100. It would be the approximate equivalent of saying \"\"Just put your money in SPY\"\" or any other ETF. I didn't see the thread in question (looks like it was in /r/personalfinance not /r/finance; so, not the \"\"rules\"\" here), but my guess is people down voted you (and you were eventually removed by the mod) for \"\"low effort\"\", which simply stating \"\"Put your money in an ETF\"\" could possibly be construed as. That said, the top rated comment in that thread did suggest putting some portion of the funds in an ETF, it's just rarely an appropriate answer for all of someone's investment capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7bcd917fe07b351cca0a1b88d3050c8", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7391368b5d5e267700ee2a4704231a52", "text": "If you want to put in $1000 into penny stocks, I wouldn't be calling that investing but more like speculation or gambling. You might have better odds at a casino. If you don't have much money at the moment to invest properly and you are just starting out as an investor, I would spend that $1000 on educating yourself so that by the time you have more money to invest you can come up with a better investment strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b", "text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5", "text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa5f1b430093745597a20ae6f4fba86", "text": "Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f094f4d137e563cb3b3263b5ac6a04c4", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da4d9bd8bb3891fc78d8965d83723ad1", "text": "TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8", "text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
26235e726bbd4e08282181b5e226f70d	historical data for analysing pensions	[ { "docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc", "text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a3e2f1b61d32cacf842186f073f09885", "text": "\"Note that the series you are showing is the historical spot index (what you would pay to be long the index today), not the history of the futures quotes. It's like looking at the current price of a stock or commodity (like oil) versus the futures price. The prompt futures quote will be different that the spot quote. If you graphed the history of the prompt future you might notice the discontinuity more. How do you determine when to roll from one contract to the other? Many data providers will give you a time series for the \"\"prompt\"\" contract history, which will automatically roll to the next expiring contract for you. Some even provide 2nd prompt, etc. time series. If that is not available, you'd have to query multiple futures contracts and interleave them based on the expiry rules, which should be publicly available. Also is there not a price difference from the contract which is expiring and the one that is being rolled forward to? Yes, since the time to delivery is extended by ~30 days when you roll to the next contract. but yet there are no sudden price discontinuities in the charts. Well, there are, but it could be indistinguishable from the normal volatility of the time series.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8874c2e14077c87317b65163a01e3d35", "text": "\"The graphing tools within Yahoo offer a decent level of adjustment. You can easily choose start and end years, and 2 or more symbols to compare. I caution you. From Jan 1980 through Dec 2011, the S&P would have grown $1 to $29.02, (See Moneychimp) but, the index went up from 107.94 to 1257.60, growing a dollar to only $11.65. The index, and therefore the charts, do not include dividends. So long term analysis will yield false results if this isn't accounted for. EDIT - From the type of question this is, I'd suggest you might be interested in a book titled \"\"Stock Market Logic.\"\" If memory serves me, it offered up patterns like you suggest, seasonal, relations to Presidential cycle, etc. I don't judge these approaches, I just recall this book exists from seeing it about 20 years back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "686353aa0176a8522cfd0e1abcfd9131", "text": "Over the last 100 years this has happened twice. It cant be considered an outlier. Especially considering the misery is far from over, euro crisis, looming pension crisis, food crisis, etc. There are a lot of things far from resolved. An event that happens once every 50 years is hardly an outlier just unlikely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf6c86216612076e2a691b7e92c45363", "text": "\"From the Vanguard page - This seemed the easiest one as S&P data is simple to find. I use MoneyChimp to get - which confirms that Vanguard's page is offering CAGR, not arithmetic Average. Note: Vanguard states \"\"For U.S. stock market returns, we use the Standard & Poor's 90 from 1926 through March 3, 1957,\"\" while the Chimp uses data from Nobel Prize winner, Robert Shiller's site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7", "text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425", "text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2136538e1c183dd41f933085eadd0b7f", "text": "\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39e680ba097f0ffc975fb39a29e5dcd0", "text": "Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8", "text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9764ba3afd9210806de741e49eaf845a", "text": "\"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. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days\|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5827c06d5930287cb79a7fb81e2df7d9", "text": "I agree, i don’t think it was always like this. Here is a little story I was told about the coal miners in the Uk. Coal mining was massive industry in the uk for about 150 years, (its the reason the world ended up getting railways, symbiotically) the mines as usual was located in the poorer regions but they was good paying jobs for the working man, anyway along with the birth of the industrial revolution came unions and with unions came protection and in turn pensions. So together these minors saved and saved heavily, there pension pot swelled, unfortunately though the mining industry was hazardous one and these minors died young... anyway fast forward to the 70s Margret thatcher Ronald Regan, and the closure of mines. There was a lot less minors by then and a huge pension pot, every minor in the country could have stopped paying into the pension and retired before 50. Thatcher did not like this and neither did the wealthy bankers, so they stole it all and made new pension rules,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "542f6a65b035a8b2d4c2355dadc9390b", "text": "There are two ways to measure the value of money in the past. 1) As Victor mentioned there are inflation statistics covering the last 100 or so years that value the currency against an ever-changing basket of goods. This is sufficient when measuring general inflation over the period of the hundred years where there is data. This is how it was measured in your example. 2) For older time periods or where a value comparison is required between specific items (particularly where these were not in the basket of goods used for the inflation calculation) Historical records of the price of comparable goods can be used. This is in effect the same as mark to market valuations for illiquid financial instruments and requires poring through records to find the price of either a comparable basket of goods to one that would be used for inflation calculations today or a comparable set of items. An example of this is finding the value of a particular type of house (say a terraced house in London) in the 19th Century compared to the same house today by finding records of how much comparable houses would sell for, on average, then and now. This second measure is also used where the country in question didn't or doesn't keep reliable inflation statistics which may well be true of Colombia in the 90s. This means that there is a chance that this way of estimating Escobar's wealth in today's terms may have also been used. Another notable reason to use this methodology is that (unless you are using exchange rates in purchasing power parity terms) the value of money held in different currencies is different. This is even true today as the value of $1 in INR in India is likely to be higher than the value of a dollar in the US in terms of what you can buy. Using this methodology allows for a more accurate comparison in values where different countries and currencies are involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2591ce2451f7d5ac4b526b0f345156c6", "text": "I use Yahoo Finance to plot my portfolio value over time. Yahoo Finance uses SigFig to link accounts (I've linked to Fidelity), which then allows you to see you exact portfolio and see a plot of its historical value. I'm not sure what other websites SigFig will allow you to sync with, but it is worth a try. Here is what the plot I have looks like, although this is slightly out of date, but still gives you an idea of what to expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0044afa440570181fb34cb566eaab389", "text": "I found the zephyr database, which does the job. Nonetheless if someone knows other (open) sources, be welcome to answer.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9346d678dfb06e1ed4f39c36f5b2412b	How can I buy these ETFs?	[ { "docid": "625a988bfb55940701a041358b283f3b", "text": "Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fc06bcf306ff5f988ba068f23fd8586", "text": "ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "413d3bf0ea58ed81d3f3075a50cae56d", "text": "Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca2dd5f266d4df81c365b3c9d5171ced", "text": "Many brokers offer a selection of ETFs with no transaction costs. TD Ameritrade and Schwab both have good offerings. Going this route will maximize diversification while minimizing friction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b6b44831c59cf35dcdf3a81a0cb0e62", "text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f719c6cd550aa8750e9b8d06241671cf", "text": "\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14a9111f0d41690460427ab8a1cace5d", "text": "In a word, yes. You can buy very low cost index ETFs, like VTI, VEA, BND, FBND and rebalance in proportion to your age and risk tolerance. Minimal management and low cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5055129e03954ba06bc3c85dc6e8e039", "text": "Just saw the update: Here's some ETFs for Canada from Vanguard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffc8f0633f8b405fbcf04b373537fdbc", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fa345328cc8d114885c2f61dce4428a", "text": "\"Buy the ETF with ticker \"\"SPY\"\". This will give you exposure to exactly the S&P 500 stocks, This is similar to the mutual fund suggestion by Ben Miller, except that the ETF has several advantages over mutual funds, especially as regards taxes. You can find information on the difference between ETF and mutual fund in other questions on this site or by searching the web.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763", "text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31e97770a3ade5cb10270ca168b820c5", "text": "Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99c15aaf3ab361336a8b7a425d667db5", "text": "A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3167b26b3d85953e30d252c7ae9aa5d5", "text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373", "text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4a5b3c153b0ee7c0d8c166d89883c0", "text": "\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b71b44af36e554efc5a1cc5393e53d0", "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 the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c3c331d97be9fa140beb01e83257d059	Germany Tax Question - Non-Resident and not employed in Germany	[ { "docid": "452bfceb558022757ab382661c83b5f6", "text": "No you won't. Germany taxes income, not bank accounts. Note that this changes immediately when your bank account makes interest - you will owe taxes on this interest. However, chances are you won't get a bank account. Without residency or income, typically the banks wouldn't give you an account. Feel free to try, though.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f6ad013cf08e69dbb6805502c23c936c", "text": "Fear tactics posted above, likely by IRS agents. Yes, you qualify based on the residence test. You perform your work outside the US. You gather business data in a foreign country. The income is excluded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c630aeb467186a71cce758e33cc14d9f", "text": "ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc33ce0d56470b8d0c126c600e263807", "text": "You're free to provide services, but if you stay in one country for more than half a year - you're generally considered to be its resident for tax purposes. Germany is no exception to the rule, in fact - this is true to almost any country in the world. If you provide the services from Poland, and never set foot in Germany - they won't say a word.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "735288ea721f87fe49b5c1098226c735", "text": "The finance team from your company should be able to advise you. From what I understand you are Indian Citizen for Tax purposes. Any income you receive globally is taxable in India. In this specific case you are still having a Employee relationship with your employer and as such the place of work does not matter. You are still liable to pay tax in India on the salary. If you are out of India for more than 182 days, you can be considered as Non-Resident from tax point of view. However this clause would not be of any benefit to you as are having a Employee / Employer relationship and being paid in India. Edit: This is only about the India portion of taxes. There maybe a UK protion of it as well, plus legally can you work and your type of Visa in UK may have a bearing on the answer", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871ad76b8ecb9de6c996da3e8ea85dfc", "text": "\"As I understand it the usual rule is that the country you are \"\"resident\"\" in taxes you on your worldwide income but gives you credit for foreign tax paid. The country you are not normally resident in taxes you only on income from that one country. Note that residence for tax purposes can have different rules from residence for immigration purposes. At least in the UK being resident in the country for more than half the tax year normally makes you tax resident and there are some other cases too. I expect other countries are similar but the details of the rules and the start/end of the tax years may vary. I don't know the exact rules for finland and belgium but I expect your Belgian taxes will be based on your Belgian income only and your Finnish taxes will be based on your worldwide income but with a credit for your Belgian taxes. Engaging accountants from both countries to confirm the exact rules and what exactly you should put on the forms is almost certainly a good idea.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddbfee81b2dd2fedc5864ad12ce58715", "text": "I'm going to guess that now you're going to explain how you shouldn't add up these percentages. That is most certainly wrong. The reason is that countries aren't going to agree on an order in which to tax a company. It wouldn't go like: well UK taxes first then Germany will tax whatever is left in net profits. Why the hell would Germany agree to that? They would each want their percentage of the untaxed pie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b71efbb3f5044251b6e0a556fed686ed", "text": "\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be92248dc7b9b608aaeb2cdb65eb2bd0", "text": "Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c159c05d0ec801c60acb224e0deb4cd", "text": "Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d", "text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ad108c239e53f4bb54a40e60e6ac9fb", "text": "I think if you transfer money from your account in Germany to your account in Canada you don't have to pay any taxes. However if you get any interest on your deposits, you probably have to pay tax (and probably in Canada) regardless where the account is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17fcdd5eacf583d5ae11e83b2a5e80b9", "text": "\"So, I am one of these \"\"job creators\"\" right now. I am doing software development and have hired 1 person from the U.S. and a team from Germany. So I will leave it to someone else to determine how changing my tax structure impacts job creation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eac2e73f8d413f7e41d518f1fd205ce", "text": "\"You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count: All of the days you were present in the current year, and One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9a780decda5c8e8bb9f5fa69add811c", "text": "\"Even though you will meet the physical presence test, you cannot claim the FEIE because your tax home will remain the US. From the IRS: Your tax home is the general area of your main place of business, employment, or post of duty, regardless of where you maintain your family home. Your tax home is the place where you are permanently or indefinitely engaged to work as an employee or self-employed individual. Having a \"\"tax home\"\" in a given location does not necessarily mean that the given location is your residence or domicile for tax purposes. ... You are not considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period in which your abode is in the United States. However, your abode is not necessarily in the United States while you are temporarily in the United States. Your abode is also not necessarily in the United States merely because you maintain a dwelling in the United States, whether or not your spouse or dependents use the dwelling. ... The location of your tax home often depends on whether your assignment is temporary or indefinite. If you are temporarily absent from your tax home in the United States on business, you may be able to deduct your away from home expenses (for travel, meals, and lodging) but you would not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If your new work assignment is for an indefinite period, your new place of employment becomes your tax home, and you would not be able to deduct any of the related expenses that you have in the general area of this new work assignment. If your new tax home is in a foreign country and you meet the other requirements, your earnings may qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion. If you expect your employment away from home in a single location to last, and it does last, for 1 year or less, it is temporary unless facts and circumstances indicate otherwise. If you expect it to last for more than 1 year, it is indefinite. If you expect your employment to last for 1 year or less, but at some later date you expect it to last longer than 1 year, it is temporary (in the absence of facts and circumstances indicating otherwise) until your expectation changes. For guidance on how to determine your tax home refer to Revenue Ruling 93-86. Your main place of business is in the US and this will not change, because your business isn't relocating. If you are intending to work remotely while you are abroad, you should get educated on the relevant laws on where you are going. Most countries don't take kindly to unauthorized work being performed by foreign visitors. And yes, even though you aren't generating income or involving anyone in their country, the authorities still well may disapprove of your working. My answer to a very similar question on Expatriates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b45e548d7249ae24266bede29b37465", "text": "I will not pay any taxes in the Us, since I am not working for an US company What you will or will not pay is up to you of course, but you definitely should pay taxes in the US, as you're working in the US. Since you mentioned being from Japan, I'll also suggest checking whether you're allowed to perform any work in the US under the conditions of your visa. If you're a F1/J1 student - you'll be breaking the immigration law and may be deported. You might be liable for taxes in Germany, as well, and also in Japan. I'll have to edit this to allow people who downvoted the answer without knowing the legal requirements to change their vote. F1 student cannot be a contractor without a valid EAD. Period. There's no doubt about it and legal requirements are pretty clear. Anyone who claims that you wouldn't be breaking the terms of your visa is wrong. Note, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional, for definite advice talk to a professional.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f2eb8ac734619483bfa3ff9880ab82df	Interaction between health exchange and under-65 Medicare coverage	[ { "docid": "5ff1af280caefca969392dcb82bd928c", "text": "First off, you should contact your health plan administrator as soon as possible. Different plans may interact differently with Medicare; any advice we could provide here would be tentative at best. Some of the issues you may face: A person with both Medicare and a QHP would potentially have primary coverage from 2 sources: Medicare and the QHP. No federal law addresses this situation. Under state insurance law an individual generally cannot collect full benefits from each of 2 policies that together pay more than an insured event costs. State law usually specifies how insurance companies will coordinate health benefits when a person has primary coverage from more than one source. In that situation, insurance companies determine which coverage is primary and which is secondary. It’s important to understand that a QHP is not structured to pay secondary benefits, nor are the premiums calculated or adjusted for secondary payment. In addition, a person with Medicare would no longer receive any premium assistance or subsidies under the federal law. While previous federal law makes it illegal for insurance companies to knowingly sell coverage that duplicates Medicare’s coverage when someone is entitled to or enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, there has been no guidance on the issue of someone who already has individual health insurance and then also enrolls in Medicare. We and other consumer organizations have asked state and federal officials for clarification on this complicated situation. As such, it likely is up to the plan how they choose to pay - and I wouldn't expect them to pay much if they think they can avoid it. You may also want to talk to someone at your local Medicare branch office - they may know more about your state specifically; or someone in your state's department of health/human services, or whomever administers the Exchanges (if it's not federal) in your state. Secondly, as far as enrolling for Part B, you should be aware that if she opts not to enroll in Part B at this time, if your wife later chooses to enroll before she turns 65 she will be required to pay a penalty of 10% per 12 month period she was not enrolled. This will revert to 0 when she turns 65 and is then eligible under normal rules, but it will apply every year until then. If she's enrolling during the normal General Enrollment period (Jan-March) then if she fails to enroll then she'll be required to pay that penalty if she later enrolls; if this is a Special Enrollment Period and extends beyond March, she may have the choice of enrolling next year without penalty.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f1a7b6858e63a5f30b21e373e2d9d8e5", "text": "I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15034ead9413735215f730cb5e1fe918", "text": "\"HSAs as they exist today allow a person to contribute tax deductible money (like a traditional IRA) to a savings account. The funds in the savings account can be spent tax free for qualified expenses. If the money is invested it also grows tax free. This means a discount on your cash health expenses of the amount you would have paid in taxes, which given your relative's income isn't likely to be very much. As HSAs exist today they must be paired to a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP). Many plans have a deductible that meets or exceeds the level set by the regulations but many plans waive the deductible for things like X-Rays; waiving the deductible causes most \"\"high deductible\"\" plans to not qualify for HSA accounts. There are other qualified HSA expenses like Long Term Care (LTC) insurance premiums that can also be spent tax and penalty free from HSA funds. At age 60 with low income an HSA serves little purpose because the tax savings is so marginal and an HDHP is required. That does not however mean that the scope of HSA availability should not be expanded. Just because this is not a silver bullet for everyone does not mean it is of no use to anyone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5345be7d605b0afce14d92988730fc0", "text": "Here's the issue with LTC and, really, underwritten insurance in general; no one has a crystal ball. Based on today's available rates where's the sweet spot to buy LTC? Probably right around the mid-60s, because you probably won't pay much in before you start gutting the carrier (assuming you can make it through underwriting in your mid-60s). The issue is, what happens when some life event changes your underwriting status? Would you rather buy prematurely or be excluded entirely? Those are generally your two options when it comes to individual LTC. The underwriting eligibility window on LTC is very narrow. There's a very very small space between the best possible underwriting and being flatly declined. Look for an LTC agent in your area. Likely someone in your circle of friends and family will know a reputable/knowledgeable insurance agent who can run up some quotes at various underwriting classes. Try to avoid looking at quotes for your age + 10 years to see what the quote will look like 10 years from now. 10 years from now the rate tables will be significantly different. Whether or not you should buy LTC now rather than waiting will depend on a whole host of other criteria. Personally, if I was 50 and my biggest health concern was improving my run time and LTC is on my mind, I'd just pick up a policy now while I will likely be in a preferred underwriting class rather than waiting and hoping my health doesn't betray me. Obviously I'm a stranger on the internet and none of this is actual advice. You should find an agent local to you and talk about your options and situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58e9f8e3ec0964b68da6ac0df0d26c12", "text": "While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0953bef468f3b4cafbef32942cbbdcc7", "text": "Nothing has changed. I work with many 20 somethings and over the past five years none of them opted into the company health care and when I have talked with 30 somethings they stated that they took the same approach 10 years ago. It wasn't until they started to experience physical issues (due to growing older) and starting a family did they buy into health care. This is just another PR in the never ending pieces floating around the media these days. No fact checking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d33c498b193dc8a5641c37ffc2be7c78", "text": "\"For the person being hired this is a tricky situation. Specially with the new laws. There is no real magic number that can be applied as a lot will depend on what benefits you want, and what is actually available. This will really shift the spectrum quite a bit. Under the affordibal care act, everyone has to have insurance or pay a ?fine? (were really not sure what to call this yet) but there are two provisions that really mess with the numbers you look at as an employee. First, the cost of heath care has skyrocketed. So the same benefits that you had 5 years ago now cost maybe 10-15 times as much as they used to. This gets swept under the rug a bit because the \"\"main costs\"\" of insurance has only increased a tiny amount. What this actually comes down to is does your new ACA approved heath plan cover exactly the benefits you need, or does it cut corners. Sorry this is complicated, and I don't mean it to come off as a speech against the ACA so I will give an example. My wife has RA, she really has it under control with the help of her RA doctor. This is not something she ever wants to change. Because she has had RA from the age of 15, and because it's degenerative, she doesn't want to spend 5 years working with a new doctor to get to the same place she is with her current doctor. In addition, the main drugs she takes for RA are not covered under any ACA plan, nor are the \"\"substitutions\"\" that her doctor makes (we are trying to have kids so she has to be off the main meds, and a couple of the things this doctor has tried has been meds that reduce inflammation, are pregnancy safe, but are not for the treatment of RA) You now have to take into effect rather the cost of health insurance + the cost of the things now not covered by the heath insurance + the out of pocket expenses is worth the insurance. Second the ACA has set up provisions to straight up trick those people that have lower income and are not paying close attention. When shopping for insurance, they get quotes like \"\"$50 a month\"\" or \"\"$100 a month\"\". The truth is that the remainder of the actual cost is deducted from their tax returns. This takes consideration, because if you thing your paying $50 a month for insurance but your really paying $650 then you need to make sure your doing your math right. Finally, you need to understand how messed up things are right now in the US with heath care. Largely this goes unreported. I'm not really sure why. But in order to do this I will have to give examples. For my wife to see a specialist (her RA doctor) the co-pay is $75. So she goes to the doctor, he charges her $75 and bills the insurance $200. The insurance pays the doctor $50. With out insurance, the visit costs $50. At first you want to blame the doctor for cheating the system, but the doctor has to pay for hours of labor to get the $50 back from the insurance company. From the doctors perspective it's cheaper to take the $50 then it is to charge the insurance company. And by charging the insurance company he has no control over the cost of the co pay. He essentially has to charge more to make the same money and the patient gets the shaft in the process. Another example, I got strep throat last year. I went to the walk in clinic, paid $75, saw the doctor got my Z-Pack for $15, went home crawled in bed and got better. My wife (who still had separate insurance from before the marriage) got strep throat (imagen that) went to the same clinic, they charged her $200 for the visit ($50 co-pay) and $250 for the z-pack ($3 co-pay). The insurance paid the clinic $90 for the visit and $3 for the drugs. Again the patient is left out in this scenario. In this case it worked better for my wife, unless you account for the fact that to get that coverage she had to pay $650/month. My point is that when comparing costs of heathcare with insurance, and without out insurance, its often times much cheaper for the practices to have you self pay then it is for them to go through the loops of trying to insurance to make them whole. This creates two rates. Self pay rates and Insured rates. When your trying to figure out the cost of not having insurance then you need to use the self pay rates. These can be vastly different. So as an employee you need to figure out your cost of heath care with insurance, and your cost of heath care without insurance. Then user those numbers when your trying to negotiate a salary. The problem is that there is no magic number to use for this because the cost will very a lot. For us, it was cheaper to not have insurance. Even with a pre-existing condition that takes constant attention, it's just better if we set aside $500 a month then it is to try to pay $750 a month. That might not hold true for everyone. For some people or conditions it may be better to pay the $750 then to try to handle it themselves. So for my negotiations I would go with x+$6,000 without insurance or x+$4,500 with insurance. Now as an employer it's a lot simpler. Usually you have a \"\"group plan\"\" that offers you a pretty straight $x per year per person or $y per year per family. So you can offer exactly that. Salary - $x or Salary - $y. AS a starting point. However this is where negotiations start. If your offering me $50,500 and insurance, I would rather just have $57,000 and no insurance. Of course your real cost is only $55,000 cause you don't care about my heath care costs only about insurance costs. So you try to negotiate down towards $55,000 and no insurance. But that's not good enough for me. So I either go else where and you loose talent, or I accept $50,500 and insurance (or somewhere in between).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66ae57cb031636ae2d3d2ab71486356f", "text": "No, I'd prefer a healthcare environment where prices are so reasonable you don't need outlandish insurance and trillion dollar government programs. But no, the government refuses to negotiate. Why? Because the almost all healthcare legislation is created to enrich the industry itself. Obamacare is nice in theory, but what it really does is give the insurance industry 30 million new customers without so much as a token discount. Medicare has a provision that specifically prohibits negotiation of prices on drugs. So you tell me, should the role of the government be to enrich the companies by feeding them more customers, err.... I mean enrolling more citizens. Or should the role of government be to keep regulation in check to where it doesn't cost $80 for a single pair of latex gloves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb03063024d9eea182fc467418b308a", "text": "The payer system doesn't matter when the health care industry is being massively demand side subsidized year after year primarily by Medicaid and Medicare. It's econ 101 that massively demand side subsidizing an industry drives up prices, but too many pockets are being filled by the subsidization, so this point is not emphasized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e592ae57c5f0ba375bca8dc922dbce9", "text": "Edit: Let's forget about Wikipedia. From the horse's mouth: The cafeteria plan rules require that a health FSA provide uniform coverage throughout the coverage period (which is the period when the employee is covered by the plan). See Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.125-5(d). Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. This means that the employee’s entire health FSA election is available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse qualified medical expenses incurred during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of lay-off or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee. (emphasis added) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1012060.pdf Uniform Coverage Rule The IRS has required that “health FSAS must qualify as accident or health plans. This means that, in general, while the health coverage under the FSA need not be provided through a commercial insurance contract, health FSAS must exhibit the risk-shifting and risk-distribution characteristics of insurance.” This concept has led to the “uniform coverage” rule. The uniformcoverage rule requires that the maximum amount of an employee’s projected elective contributions to a health FSA must be available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse the employee’s qualified medical expenses, regardless of the amount actually contributed to the plan at the time that reimbursement is sought. Citing proposed Treasury Regulations Section the IRS General Counsel has determined that: “Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee.” This rule is unfair and also constitutes a disincentive to establishing FSAS because of the exposure to out-of pocket expenditures arising from employees who leave the company. NSBA believes that the uniform coverage rule should also be revised if the or lose- it rule is changed. Revising the use-it or lose-it rule while leaving the uniform coverage rule unchanged will introduce an inappropriate asymmetry to FSAS. An employer should be allowed to deduct any negative amount arising from insuftîcient employee contributions from a terminating partieipant’s last paycheck. http://www.ecfc.org/files/legislative-news/NSBA_(David_Burton).pdf (emphasis added) Now, that's some fresh bitterness for you right there. (Dated August 17, 2012)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7a71b35e37655589d546ede0b3754c", "text": "Many big companies self insure. They pay the insurance company to manage the claims, and to have access to their network of doctors, hospitals, specialists, and pharmacies; but cover the costs on a shared basis with the employees. Medium sized companies use one of the standard group policies. Small companies either have expensive policies because they are a small group, or they have to join with other small companies through an association to create a larger group. The bigger the group the less impact each individual person has on the group cost. The insurance companies reprice their policies each year based on the expected demographics of the groups, the negotiated rates with the network of providers, the required level of coverage, and the actual usage of the group from the previo year.. If the insurance company does a poor job of estimating the performance of the group, it hits their profits; which will cause them to raise their rates the next year which can impact the number of companies that use them. Some provisions of the new health care laws in the US govern portability of insurance regarding preexisting conditions, minimum coverage levels, and the elimination of many lifetime cap. Prior to these changes the switching of employers while very sick could have a devastating impact on the finances of the family. The lifetime cap could make it hard to cover the person if they had very expensive illnesses. If the illness doesn't impact your ability to work, there is no need to discuss it during the interview process. It won't need to be discussed except while coordinating care during the transition. There is one big issue though. If the old company uses Aetna, and the new company doesn't then you might have to switch doctors, or hospitals; or go out-of-network at a potentially even bigger cost to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65a58ef0375ce0dc273460f030224e16", "text": "\"J Gruber's consulting reports for the various states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc). * http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/jon-gruber-on-the-premiums-in-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAN0TUWS_blog.html ...and the article it addresses (which included some numbers from the reports): * http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/11/obamacare-architect-expect-steep-increase-in-health-care-premiums/ Note that Gruber has made a whole spectrum of claims (from initially claiming that premiums would go DOWN for a consulting agreement with the Obama administration, to later \"\"revisions\"\" showing significant increases {to varying degrees depending on the individuals specific demographic}), to wit: >Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.” >During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall. >“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported. >The reason for this is that an estimated 40 percent of Wisconsin residents who are covered by individual market insurance don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage requirements. Under the Affordable Care Act, they will be required to purchase more expensive plans. >Asked for his own explanation for the expected health-insurance rate hikes, Gruber told TheDC that his reports “reflect the high cost of folding state high risk pools into the [federal government's] exchange — without using the money the state was already spending to subsidize those high risk pools.” Note: Emphasis added. Note 2: To begin with, an \"\"average\"\" increase of 31% qualifies as \"\"significant\"\" (hell, it's a lot more than merely \"\"significant\"\", that's a HUGE increase); and secondly, that is an AVERAGE, meaning that while some of the people in that \"\"59%\"\" will probably not see such a high increase, a fairly large segment {and per the provisions of the Act versus current premium calculation methods, we KNOW these will be \"\"young healthy singles\"\", and especially males} will face increases that are substantially HIGHER than 31%, and in fact will probably be in the nature of double or triple previous premiums {as would be required in order to meet another provision of the act, that highest premiums for older/sicker pool members cannot be higher than 3x that of the youngest/lowest tier premiums -- and if the company is to balance the books, it can only \"\"bring down\"\" the one end if it makes a compensating increase at the other end.}) None of that is \"\"rocket science\"\" and it is entirely predictable. (The only things that would be \"\"odd\"\" would be that anyone should expect anything different, and that Gruber's initial claims of across the board lower costs were ever accepted in the first place.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dad9223f9fff2a8a2a67e0169a91b7c", "text": "A free market requires consumer feedback in the market as a check to the actions of the producer/seller. Because of the nature of health care, the consumer doesn't have the power to check the price setting power of the producer/seller by going to another seller with a better price. Market competition in the health care market is illusory.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e92eeb968acf95e2faf7cfa65478d922", "text": "It will not do anything except make insurance companies really happy and create a [race to the bottom, where we get the worst policies offered by encouragin insurers to go to the states with the least restrictions.](http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/september/30/selling-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx) In fact, there is no evidence [insurers even want to do this.](http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-insurance/260049-study-little-practical-interest-in-selling-insurance-across-state-lines-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9910b732972ff0b64707c75f907d50e0", "text": "\"Putting middlemen into the equation is never going to reduce costs, but this is what the U.S. did in the 1970s when they made it much easier for new HMOs to be established and grow. Now the middlemen (HMOs, insurance companies, and their paid political toadies) have almost choked the market to death and they have no incentive to release their death grip because the status quo is profitable for them. The only way out is the single-payer solution and everyone -- business, government, individuals -- benefits from this except the middlemen and their bought-and-paid-for \"\"representative\"\" politicians. This situation of barely functional health care in the U.S. is the perfect example of what happens when politicians are manipulated to make policy based on who gives them the most money and until the money/profit element is removed from governance it is only going to get worse. Wealth as free speech? Yelling \"\"Fire\"\" in a packed theater is free speech too, but we don't allow it and for good reason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dce3b5ccd9b08766079ef219ea3c148", "text": "Are corporations not already passing along the cost of healthcare to the consumer? When the employer pays, directly, for the employees health insurance, it goes directly into overhead costs. Goods and service costs have to rise to meet that. It's already happened. Ideally, the healthcare savings would just offset the VAT. Employee salaries probably wouldn't increase any, even ideally.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
49c20bc3ed5bcf30c84f6cba14badc65	Anyone have experience with Brink's 5% savings account?	[ { "docid": "7f38ea3dae9fc18cd2d732ba1f8e379a", "text": "Down in the Fine Print are these points to consider for the limit: For an average daily balance up to but not exceeding $5,000.00, the interest rate for the Savings Account is 4.91% with an annual percentage yield (APY) of 5.00%. For that portion of the average daily balance of the Savings Account that is $5,000.01, or more, the interest rate is 0.49% with an annual percentage yield (APY) of 0.50%. The interest rates and APYs of each tier may change. The APYs were accurate as of March 1, 2014. These are promotional rates and may change without notice pursuant to applicable law. No minimum balance necessary to open Savings Account or obtain the yield(s). Because Savings Account funds are withdrawn through the Card Account (maximum 6 such transfers per calendar month), Card Account transaction fees could reduce the interest earned on the Savings Account. Card Account and Savings Account funds are FDIC-insured upon verification of Cardholder's identity. For purposes of FDIC coverage limit, all funds held on deposit by the Cardholder at BofI Federal Bank will be aggregated up to the coverage limit, currently $250,000.00.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "12a583a6286a5fc174996a44ac2cf3da", "text": "What worked out well for me is a Capital One High Yield Savings Account, which came with a lower interest rate than most online accounts but higher than a brick & mortar bank. Also, since Capital One has Banking locations now, I can use the ATM card that came with this account to pull out the emergency money if I need it in a pinch at a place that doesn't accept checks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a58bb6f1803e7765a19450e6a9a536", "text": "\"Well the People's Trust's IPO prospectus is now (2017-09-08) available for all to read (or there's a smaller \"\"information leaflet\"\"). (May need some disclaimers to be clicked to get access). Both have a \"\"highlights\"\" bullet-point list: Coverage here has a comment thread with some responses by the founder attempting to answer the obvious objection that there's other multi-manager trusts on a discount (e.g Alliance Trust on ~ -5.5%), so why would you buy this one on a (very small) premium? (Update: There's also another recent analysis here.) Personally, I'm thinking the answer to the original question \"\"How is The People's Trust not just another Investment Trust?\"\" is pretty much: \"\"it's just another Investment Trust\"\" (albeit one with its own particular quirks and goals). But good luck to them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc01e681551f89397ada2de94172c65", "text": "\"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394bb6647586be1013b72bbe7b8f1858", "text": "Wells Fargo. They have an account called PMA, an umbrella account for checking, savings, mortgage, and brokerage accounts. It would cost $30/month, but I never had to pay because I have a rollover retirement account that is enough to waive the fees. They count all accounts, including mortgage, which I used to have. Oh, and no restrictions. An added advantage is there are no fees for any of the accounts, nor for some other things, like bank checks, outside ATM fees, etc. I'm in California, so I don't know if the same deal exists in other states. But if you qualify for the free account, it's pretty good. Actually, most of my investments are Vanguard funds. And I have another rollover account with Vanguard, and never pay fees, but I only buy or sell from one Vanguard fund to another, and rarely since I have targeted retirement funds that are designed to be no maintenance. For some reason, I trust Vanguard more than most other funds; maybe because I like their philosophy on low-cost funds, which they started but are now getting more popular.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eab7e36b25c1c0622461135578665acf", "text": "Diversification and convenience: Is .15-0.35% fee worth it? It depends on your net worth, amount you invest and value of your time (if you have high net worth and low cost of your time the fee is highier then in case when you have low net worth but high cost of time - so Betterment seems to be a better option to young professional just after college then to someone already retired), your interest in finance, your willpower etc. Is Betterment allocation better then pure SPY? From what I understand about finance theory - yes. EDIT (as requested) I don't have any affiliation with any financial institution as far as I know. I opened it to get used to just investing as oppose to saving and ups and downs of market (and read up on the portfolio management, especially index funds) and I guess it worked well for me. I plan to move out entirely out of it once the cost of the account would be more then paying for a few coffees and move the account to Vanguard, Schwab or something similar. In other accounts (HSA/...) I use simpler portfolio then the Betterment one (US Total, Small Value, Developed, Emerging and Bonds) but there are people who use simpler (search for 3 fund portfolio).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93bd1971ca0c84f2a6edc1cea926be7d", "text": "Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65b489c3f610de3e3622600f09fb1ab7", "text": "I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA? I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily. If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45c359c54214ce7498cdb47c65729dbc", "text": "I have had accounts at both IB and Questrade. Whatever you've heard about Questrade, sadly much of it is true pertaining to 2007-2009. I have not had any issues with their service, and making the few trades I do with the QuestraderWEB service has been flawless. In the time that I've had the account, their service has constantly been improving (statements are easier to read, customer service is more responsive). You should read what FrugalTrader and Canadian Capitalist have to say along with the combined 1000+ comments before deciding. Interactive Brokers is a whole different world. Those guys are the definition of real-time. You can get daily and weekly statements, along with the typical monthly statements. Buying power, margin, etc, is all updated in real-time and viewable in their TWS software. Trading fees are definitely lower than Questrade unless you're routinely trading 800-1000+ shares. Most of my trades cost $1. Options have a lower limit before Questrade makes more sense. And nothing beats IB for forex. Ultimately it really depends on what you will be doing. Note that IB charges a minimum monthly fee of $10 ($3 if you're young and foolish). If you don't hit that with commissions, the balance is taken from your account. Also, all other fees are passed on to you (e.g. data, order cancellation). IB also doesn't have any registered accounts such as TFSA or RRSP, and doesn't plan to. If you'll be doing a bunch of hefty trading, IB offers a trading platform free of charge, but charges for everything else. Questrade instead has a monthly fee for its QuestraderPRO and QuestraderELITE services, but that includes data and flat rate commissions. If you're just looking for a place to invest cheaply without extra fees and plan on making a few trades a year, Questrade might be the right choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c11c66486208fbc7b670604ab93b45e", "text": "\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \"\"free\"\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a8a67ea7ce494e435405a0f4a50e3b6", "text": "Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2", "text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc9beba134af860f63df40315c9b5caa", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f27db9be9f670568435ea70473cb7ef7", "text": "Well, people have been saying interest rates have to go up for years now and have been wrong so far. Also there is an opportunity cost in waiting to buy - if another five years passes with nothing happen, you earn 0% on checking accounts, but at least earn 1.65% per year or so on your 10y bond.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11e2ca802f70e201ecfa2a6f0e81f2f6", "text": "> if you leave like 5k at all times in your account the fee is waived Easier said than done. In the US, more than 20% of adults have zero savings whatsoever, and 62% have less than $1,000 in savings. Pretty tough for most folks to have $5,000 just sitting around in order to prevent a $15 monthly fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c91ac941b4ed289385a857c15e9c81e8", "text": "I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e27ccaf83c0cf43f28120734365a3505	Trading on forex news, Interactive Brokers / IDEALPRO, and slippage	[ { "docid": "89940e315a6cc1493916b85e348e62eb", "text": "In my experience thanks to algorithmic trading the variation of the spread and the range of trading straight after a major data release will be as random as possible, since we live in an age that if some pattern existed at these times HFT firms would take out any opportunity within nanoseconds. Remember that some firms write algorithms to predict other algorithms, and it is at times like those that this strategy would be most effective. With regards to my own trading experience I have seen orders fill almost €400 per contract outside of the quoted range, but this is only in the most volatile market conditions. Generally speaking, event investing around numbers like these are only for top wall street firms that can use co-location servers and get a ping time to the exchange of less than 5ms. Also, after a data release the market can surge/plummet in either direction, only to recover almost instantly and take out any stops that were in its path. So generally, I would say that slippage is extremely unpredictable in these cases( because it is an advantage to HFT firms to make it so ) and stop-loss orders will only provide limited protection. There is stop-limit orders( which allow you to specify a price limit that is acceptable ) on some markets and as far as I know InteractiveBrokers provide a guaranteed stop-loss fill( For a price of course ) that could be worth looking at, personally I dont use IB. I hope this answer provides some helpful information, and generally speaking, super-short term investing is for algorithms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "006c2bb9d3880cc1d341159d8214249a", "text": "Slippage is tied to volatility, so when volatility increases the spread will also increase. There is no perfect formula to figure out slippage but from observations, it might make sense to look at the bar size in relation to previous bars to determine slippage (assuming fixed periods). This is because when there is a sudden spike in price, it's usually due to stop order triggering or a news event and those will increase the volatility dramatically in seconds.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2ea51041cbb14ef2276388529ab024ee", "text": "Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa1fd4c1ea9ab614af95103a1847a75c", "text": "Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af33cd86a35b4e342dee5fc32e94dbe6", "text": "You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db80ee9cc1f82f76ee6adc6bc300bb4f", "text": "\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03e9557aeedc4a1650f7eba55a9cf3b6", "text": "I work for a fund management company and we get our news through two different service providers Bloomberg and Thomson One. They don't actually source the news though they just feed news from other providers Professional solutions (costs ranging from $300-1500+ USD/month/user) Bloomberg is available as a windows install or via Bloomberg Anywhere which offers bimometric access via browser. Bloomberg is superb and their customer support is excellent but they aren't cheap. If you're looking for a free amateur solution for stock news I'd take a look at There are dozens of other tools people can use for day trading that usually provide news and real time prices at a cost but I don't have any direct experience with them", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcffe05a9aa5ced0a8d67edcb9f5e6d5", "text": "\"Not arguing w that at all, and you can't colo w IB afaik. Their API over WAN, VPN or CTCI on direct line only. If you colo at Nasdaq and clear through Lightspeed you're talking microseconds (which is where my actual low latency strats are). But yes, I suppose for IB I should have mentioned \"\"low-ish\"\" latency rather than actual low latency. So I'll add a caveat to the newbs - don't try to do ECN arb (or any other super-low-latency strat) or market-make (their cancel fees will kill you) the entire equity universe through IB. It won't work. They're not suitable for that. My 50-100 reference was for WAN IB clearing for these guys probably using their API through IB gateway or TWS, which is how most would likely start. Doubt they're diving head first into ECN arb day one - they probably wouldn't be doing lowest latency stuff, most peeps start w some sort of trend following strat in my exp and you can work on those timescales w those. Trying to give advice for people starting out, not for other already pro algo traders. But yes, finprogger is correct, IB would not be a suitable broker to use for a competitive ultra low-latency strat. They are too slow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d1f1268fe00eb1e8f19c139ad9d8d02", "text": "There's a whole industry devoted to this. Professionals use Bloomberg terminals. High Frequency Traders have computers read news feeds for them. Amateurs use trading consoles (like Thinkorswim) to get headlines quickly on stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41a9c5dece5b937bc3e51cd4f09197e1", "text": "I have been trading Forex and Futures as an independant Trader for almost 3 Years now, and unfortunately i have to agree with pizzlepaps statement that if you have to ask you probably should not be doing it at all. There is a bunch of information out there on futures trading but then again im wondering which futures exactly you want to trade? Are we talking about ES contracts? Dax Contracts? Dow Contracts? Crude Contracts? I mean im going to be honest here i really would like to be of help here but quite frankly i dont know how based on your question, so for now stay away from the futures market until you have done some heavy reading and defined your goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5", "text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812", "text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e68f8e0e96e2216f94cc5d9bcecc01a", "text": "\"Here's the slippage I was talking about - - - this is when I was trading DXO or around that time. the ultra shares----interesting read at least. \"\"Based on data from October 22, 2008 to January 26, 2009, the S&P 500 had a daily standard deviation of 3.62%. If you were to invest in SDS, an UltraShort ETF which has the S&P 500 as its underlying index, and were to hold it for a year, you should expect to lose between 34% and 74% of your money, if the S&P 500 is flat for that period. This assumes that there are no transaction costs, and that the expense ratio is 0% (in fact, it's 0.91%.) My experiment also assumed that daily stock market returns follow a normal distribution. In fact, the the distribution of daily stock market returns is leptokurtotic (it has fat tails.) According to my mathematical intuition (the Ph.D. is in math, in case you were curious,) if I had performed the experiment with a leptokurtotic distribution, the losses would have been larger. Obviously, this could be checked, but the results are bad enough as it is.\"\" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/ultrapromises_fall_short.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3783f309371faca4f765f50b3f0f6d3", "text": "> Turns out inside updates via the SIP are received faster than the prop market data feed, and faster than updates received over an order entry connection. Under these circumstances the street knows a trade occurred before the participants in the trade. You're saying if IEX is the inside quote you see it disappear on a sip feed before you see it disappear from iex's MD feed? AND if it's your quote, even before you receive the trade report?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e5cfe6aa28b8ba5a6e5a16b739cd3c3", "text": "Forex trading contracts are generally fairly short dated as you mention. Months to weeks. Professional forex traders often extend the length of their bet by rolling monthly or quarterly contracts. Closing a contract out a few days before it would expire and reopening a new contract for the next quarter/month. This process can be rather expensive and time consuming for a retail investor however. A more practical (but also not great) method would be to look into currency ETFs. The ETFs generally do the above process for you and are significantly more convenient. However, depending on the broker these may not be available and when available can be illiquid and/or expensive even in major currency pairs. It's worth a bunch of research before you buy. Note, in both cases you are in a practical sense doubling your NOK exposure as your home currency is NOK as well. This may be riskier than many people would care to be with their retirement money. An adverse move would, at the same time you would lose money, make it much to buy foreign goods, which frankly is most goods in a small open country like Norway. The most simple solution would be to overweight local NOK stocks or if you believe stocks are overvalued as you mention NOK denominated bonds. With this you keep your NOK exposure (a currency you believe will appreciate) without doubling it as well as add expected returns above inflation from the stock growth/dividends or bond real interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27a2131386bb326d295d3241415a143", "text": "If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87b8b9ae7e6196e2765c38e59e836d2d", "text": "This forex training video illustrates the proper use of the stop run reversal forex trading strategy. The stop run strategy effectively spots banking manipulation in the forex market, thus allowing us as retail traders to take the same trades as the mega banks. Learn how to trade forex with the banks using this forex training video.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a5076d9a7e8898487cc9075a5af8a4a9	Tracking down forgotten brokerage account	[ { "docid": "84a5feca8c5035f6b1cf0e7cf1f8e6ee", "text": "A company as large as Home Depot will have a fairly robust Human Resources department and would probably be able to steer you in the right direction: odds are they know the name of the brokerage and other particulars. I did some googling around, their # is (1-866-698-4347). Different states have different rules about how long an institution can have assets abandoned before turning them over to the state. California, as an example, has an abandoned property search site that you can use. That being said, I had some penny stocks sitting in a brokerage account I never touched for about 20 years and when I finally logged back in there they were, still sitting there.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0", "text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5", "text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce033f385da61f67b0c492443451b1d", "text": "\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8", "text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ec3d486bed7c5634b0d1916cbc1b54c", "text": "If you held the shares directly, the transfer agent, Computershare, should have had you registered and your address from some point on file. I have some experience with Computershare, it turned out when Qwest restarted dividends and the checks mailed to the childhood home my parents no longer owned, they were able to reissue all to my new address with one telephone call. I can't tell you what their international transfer policies or fees might be, but if they have your money, at least its found. Transfer Agent Computershare Investor Services serves as the stock transfer agent for Tellabs. If you need to transfer stock, change ownership, report lost or stolen certificates, or change your address, please contact Computershare Investor Services at +1.312.360.5389.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39537f525254e9cde5d5705482fd42e4", "text": "It's true that most states have limits on what finders can charge if the listing is in state possession. If it is in the pre-escheat phase (that period of time before it goes to the state) then even if the money will eventually go to the state, the limits don't apply. Keane does a lot of work with transfer agents that handle the administrative work of stocks. Other options that have a time limit include I have a friend that was contacted by Keane. It turned out to be stock that her mother had when she worked for AMEX. She got busy with other things and got another letter from Keane. The stock increased in value and they wanted more money to help her even though they had already done the work of finding her. The money eventually went to the state and she was able to claim the full amount for FREE. If the suggestions I gave you don't get results, contact me through my web site and I'll try to help. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b408b65407c57eb00dd74769540cce", "text": "\"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the \"\"reasons\"\" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch \"\"$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol\"\" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cb94464a77b00425f9ce06a9382f6db", "text": "Reinvestment creates a nightmare when it comes time to do taxes, sadly. Tons of annoying little transactions that happened automatically... Here's one article trying to answer your question: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/figuring-out-your-cost-basis-when-youve-lost-the-statements-9529/ You could also try this thing: http://www.gainskeeper.com/us/BasisProIndividual.aspx But I couldn't tell you if it would help. If it makes you feel better, brokerages are now required by the IRS to track your basis for you, so for new transactions and assets you shouldn't end up in this situation. Doesn't help with the old stuff ;-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d7b7bfa64a908279a2976bd2f45da3", "text": "The old school way would have been to identify some wealthy zip codes and cold call like a mofo. At present I would prefer to find some retiring advisor and buy his book (that may mean leaving your current firm).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a11010563c94f613133d44194ae7dfae", "text": "The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones. Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF. Here's a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379", "text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96aefa42c9120412e688d4e47ccabd3c", "text": "Street name is not what you think it is in the question. The broker is the owner in street name. There is no external secondary owner information. I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5571f9036e7c42555e0de2cabec4d54d", "text": "I work for a hedge fund, not wealth management, but I assume that client information is treated similarly. Misplacing it is a huge deal. The company will probably need to formally investigate it and inform all the clients involved. Even if they can prove that no one looked at the information it's going to make clients question the company's procedures. I could see it being a firing offense,depending on how many clients were affected and the nature of the data. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "963461a2922f65173425e0d5ade73c8a", "text": "Its not public information but it would be hard to keep it a secret. By its very nature, a custodial bank has to interact with various brokers, middle office systems, back office systems - many of which are third party. And the investment firm will likely be giving out their custodial information to these third parties to set up interfaces and whatnot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04d62ee89c712caaf05fcef21ae08eb9", "text": "The Roth-IRA or for that matter a regular IRA is generally not connected to your place of employment. Now a 401(k) is linked to your place of employment. If the business no longer exists, they should have turned over the 401K. The US department of Labor has information regarding plans that have been abandoned. I suspect my plan is abandoned, but I have never received a notice of plan termination. How could I find out if a QTA has elected to terminate and wind up my 401(k) pension plan? EBSA has developed an Abandoned Plan searchable database to help participants and beneficiaries find out if a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated. The site is searchable by plan name or employer name and will provide the name and contact information for the QTA, if one exists. If you do not have access to a computer to conduct the search, you may contact one of EBSA’s Benefits Advisors to assist you by calling toll-free, 1.866.444.EBSA (3272).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
30a7ccf79e11afaa3fdfbab5b9ca476a	While working overseas my retirement has not gone into a retirement account. Is it going to kill me on the FAFSA?	[ { "docid": "fcf00c058fb795ee2b66e94a51bb9c79", "text": "\"According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a \"\"special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA\"\". I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges. This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering. Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible. Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c822fcf2b5ec83d30e82a9cfed95cce", "text": "Are the schools going to count all my retirement I've saved over the last 20 years as assets and calculate my EFC on 5.x% of that?! Yes.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ad04daeb3d0cbecfa093e1702e2200b8", "text": "\"I was told if I moved my 401k into a Roth IRA that school purposes is one reasons you can withdraw money without having to pay a tax. Incorrect. You will need to pay tax on the amount converted, since a 401(k) is pre-tax and a Roth IRA is after-tax. It will be added to your regular income, so you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate. is there any hidden tax or fee at all for withdrawing money from a Roth IRA for educational purposes? You still will need to pay the tax on the amount converted, but you'll avoid the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. I know that tuition, books and fees are covered for educational purposes. Can I take out of my Roth IRA for living expenses while I'm attending school? Rent, gas, food, etc... Room and board, yes, so long as you are half-time, but not gas/food Possibly only room and board for staying on-campus, but I'm not certain, although I doubt you could call your normal house payment \"\"education expense\"\" with my 401k being smaller, would it just be better to go ahead and cash the whole thing and just pay the tax and use it for whatever I need it for? What is the tax if I just decide to cash the whole thing in? You pay your marginal tax rate PLUS a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. So no, this is probably not a wise move financially unless you're on the verge of bankruptcy or foreclosure (where distress costs are much higher then the 10% penalty) I can't answer the other questions regarding grants; I would talk to the financial aid department at your school. Bottom line, transferring your 401(k) is very likely a bad idea unless you can afford to pay the tax in cash (meaning without borrowing). My advice would be to leave your 401(k) alone (it's meant for retirement not for school or living expenses) Ideally, you should pay for as much as you can out of cash flow, and don't take out more student loans. That may mean taking fewer classes, getting another part time job, finding a different (cheaper) school, applying for more grants and scholarships, etc. I would not in ANY circumstance cash out your 401(k) to pay for school. You'll be much worse off in the long run, and there are much cheaper ways to get money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7f244020437e6a98abac60a57ca848", "text": "While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4888bff0729195733eff5acf5f368f1", "text": "\"I'm in a similar situation. First, a 529 plan can be use for \"\"qualifying\"\" international schools. There are 336 for 2015, which includes many well known schools but also excludes many schools, especially lower level or vocational schools and schools in non-English speaking countries. I ran 3 scenarios to see what the impact would be if you invested $3000 a year for 14 years in something tracking the S&P 500 Index: For each of these scenarios, I considered 3 cases: a state with 0% income tax, a state with the median income tax rate of 6% for the 25% tax bracket, and California with an income tax rate of 9.3% for the 25% tax bracket. California has an addition 2.5% penalty on unqualified distributions. Additionally, tax deductions taken on contributions that are part of unqualified distributions will be viewed as income and that portion of the distribution will be taxed as such at the state level. Vanguard's 500 Index Portfolio has a 10 year average return of 7.63%. Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund has a 10 year average return of 7.89% before tax and 7.53% after taxes on distributions. Use a 529 as intended: Use a 529 but do not use as intended: Invest in a S&P 500 Index fund in a taxable account: Given similar investment options, using a 529 fund for something other than education is much worse than having an investment in a mutual fund in a taxable account, but there's also a clear advantage to using a 529 if you know with certainty you can use it for qualified expenses. Both the benefits for correct use of a 529 and the penalties for incorrect use increase with state tax rates. I live in a state with no income tax so the taxable mutual fund option is closer to the middle between correct and incorrect use of a 529. I am leaning towards the investment in a taxable account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2669a33346db6bd7409b21f9213218ad", "text": "Don't frett to much about your retirement savings just put something towards it each year. You could be dead in ten years. You should always try to clear out debt when you can. But don't wipe yourself out! Expedite the repayment process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac", "text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cefa541aa15ef7357fbfaa6eafd73265", "text": "I would go here and play with the FASFA financial aid calculator to see if you qualify for grants, which is probably your ultimate objective. It would seem to me that qualified retirement contributions do not count towards eligibility provided you are younger than 59.5, and even then it would be questionable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d207ee331864241d260bee9c73f4be88", "text": "If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6948eab7cf70e0b02a20a9372d343b", "text": "...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b4a6de4abd5979bec69ee4ab7328788", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0aaf07385a614da2199677cdbf2c77", "text": "Look into the Coverdell Education Savings Account (ESA). This is like a Roth IRA for higher education expenses. Withdrawals are tax free when used for qualified expenses. Contributions are capped at $2000/year per beneficiary (not per account) so it works well for young kids, and not so well for kids about to go to College. This program (like all tax law) are prone to changes due to action (or inaction) in the US Congress. Currently, some of the benefits are set to sunset in 2010 though they are expected to be renewed in some form by Congress this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a5d77aeba67dafed30a54c183028fe", "text": "Why not just hold that cash until you graduate from college? Why? Because it's a safety net - make sure you don't have any sudden expenses (medical, school bills, car bills, etc). Then after school you're going to need some cash for job moving, relocation, clothes, downpayment on apartment, utilities, etc. If all that cash is tied up into a 401 or IRA then you can't touch it and if something happens you'll be tempted to take a loan out. Ack! You'll have plenty of time since you're just starting to save for retirement. Keep this cash as a beginning emergency fund and hang on cause as soon as you get out of school things really move fast. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c31fd2ca20d45cccad3bed1bf0859cf", "text": "\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2c8cb46019e0553b262d0e0e3d9557d", "text": "\"You are not allowed to take a retirement account and move it into the beneficiary's name, an inherited IRA is titled as \"\"Deceased Name for the benefit of Beneficiary name\"\". Breaking the correct titling makes the entire account non-retirement and tax is due on the funds that were not yet taxed. If I am mistaken and titling remained correct, RMDs are not avoidable, they are taken based on your Wife's life expectancy from a table in Pub 590, and the divisor is reduced by one each year. Page 86 is \"\"table 1\"\" and provides the divisor to use. For example, at age 50, your wife's divisor is 34.2 (or 2.924%). Each year it decrements by 1, you do not go back to the table each year. It sounds like the seller's recommendation bordered on misconduct, and the firm behind him can be made to release you from this and refund the likely high fees he took from you. Without more details, it's tough to say. I wish you well. The only beneficiary that just takes possession into his/her own account is the surviving spouse. Others have to do what I first described.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f294f36463e93c64fe0b40f68bb3de", "text": "\"If it is planned, then one can get a Bankers Check payable overseas; if destination is known. 1.) What will happen to the money? It will eventually go to Government as escheating. Unlcaimed.org can help you trace the funds and recover it. 2.) Will the banks close the accounts? 3.) After how much time will the banks close the accounts? Eventually Yes. If there is no activity [Note the definition of activity is different, A credit interest is not considered as activity, a authentic phone call / correspondence to change the address or any servicing request is considered activity] for a period of One year, the account is classified as \"\"Dormant\"\". Depending on state, after a period of 3-5 years, it would be inactive and the funds escheated. i.e. handed over to Government. 4.) Is there anything else to do? Any ideas? Before leaving? Try keeping it active by using internet banking or credit / debit cards linked to the account. These will be valid activities. 5.) Is there any way to send a relative to the US with any kind of paper of power, to unfreeze the accounts? 6.) The banks say they would need a power of attorney, but does that person actually need to be an attorney in the US, or can it simply be a relative WITH a paper (a paper that says power of attorney) or what is a power of attorney exactly, is it an actual attorney person, or just a paper? 7.) Is there any other way to unfreeze the accounts? Although I can confirm first hand; I think there would be an exception process if a person cannot travel to the Bank. It could even be that a person is in some remote state, not well etc and can't travel in person. I think if you are out of country, you could walk-in to an US embassy and provide / sign relevant documents there and get it attested. Although for different purpose, I know a Power of Attorney being created in other country and stamped / verified by US embassy and sent it over to US. This was almost a decade back. Not sure about it currently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cbb996244fc60be4ce51aa99ccabc02", "text": "The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e5c2bb48a46f530fef75e739b849328b	ETFs mirroring consistently outperforming companies?	[ { "docid": "75e2b29099a8c4fa0c12049ef7f73594", "text": "What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0f6578a0e47baf4d84e13d9c27cc29bd", "text": "\"The problem I have with this argument is exemplified by the following statement: \"\"Focusing on share-restricted hedge funds between 1999 and 2008, Sadka and Ozik found that funds with recent inflows on average earned an additional 5.6 percent annually compared to funds that experienced outflows.\"\" Funds that are doing well tend - on average - to see customer inflows. Funds that are doing poorly tend - on average - to see customer outflows. It's the concept of \"\"hot money.\"\" The authors here imply that it's the fund inflows that prompt the outperformance, when - in reality - outperformance prompts fund inflows.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1", "text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dee286912eecf7642f76c9459dad14e7", "text": "The market is efficient, but it is not perfectly efficient. There are entities out there that consistently, legitimately, and significantly outperform the market because of asymmetric information (not necessarily insider trading) and their competitive advantage (access to data and proprietary, highly sophisticated models). I say this despite most hedge funds performing worse than their respective benchmarks. For most people (even very smart people) it makes a lot of sense to invest in index funds with a reasonable asset allocation (based on desired volatility, tax situation, rebalancing methods etc.). The usual example that is cited is RT's Medallion Fund because it has enjoyed quite dramatic returns. Other groups that have been successful include Citadel and Soros Fund Management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d94322f86b8c4d4aeab0163ac063d5a", "text": "Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a80dc7533ccb40699db040f79d2ee423", "text": "\"There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%. A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense. For the fact that studies (Google \"\"Dalbar\"\" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that \"\"I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P\"\" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75a7793b26cbeb152d35aa6d03be0528", "text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80923207a6f183be4e8cc88ae83b06f9", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb", "text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257", "text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418560ccfabd92b6f509f8e16d8243ea", "text": "Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325", "text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8958b5c15f7245431cc66cdfeca66ed0", "text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "950291af0e37e82b04cc1de7e2483eec", "text": "\"Sure the LBTA has outperformed LVOL recently but they are very similar (Just look at their underlying indices going back to 2007) - they underperform in good markets and tend to outperform more than they underperformed in down markets. The article should be saying something more like: \"\"Recent outperformance of LBTA is due to sector specific bets of the ETF\"\" And the article fails to point out that LBTA is so low volume that it even has trouble tracking its underlying index on a day to day basis. (LVOL is also very low volume, but it's still significantly better than LBTA).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19", "text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8", "text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3c4c750150028c0d48cacc987f1e0746	Can I transfer money from a personal pension to a SIPP, while leaving the original pension open?	[ { "docid": "5e0dd06cfe0974d6e6a57f83ee804db9", "text": "Just to aid your searching, note that what your employer has provided you with access to is a Group Personal Pension . Now, as to the question of whether partial transfers from a GPP to a SIPP are possible - the answer would appear to be Probably Yes; however you should contact the pension administrator at your employer (who will be able to give both the employer's and the scheme's points of view), and also the SIPP provider you are considering, to get a definitive answer. I'm basing this on the results I'm seeing googling for 'partial gpp transfer', eg Partial transfer from group pension possible? and Is it possible to transfer?. Add to that the fact that one of the largest UK SIPP providers explicitly includes a 'Partial Transfer' checkbox on their pension transfer form.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c85338c8c49bbd0594bbb38b2526493a", "text": "\"Yes it's entirely possible; see below. If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP. The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR \"\"clean priced\"\" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner! Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here. Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen. With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a65341f62347b016316e7274f54f565e", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42419f06c71eda63a7955d18a0d1cd59", "text": "You've mostly got it figured out, but there are a couple of more points to consider: You'll be permanently losing a corresponding amount of your RRSP contribution room allowance, because the re-deposit of your funds into the new RRSP would count as a new contribution, the way you're proposing to things. For a small amount, it might not matter much, and if you're like a lot of people, you may have more accumulated RRSP room than you can reasonably use up. There may be complications if spousal contributions were made into your account during the previous three years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f225093f010c21c4589471b03c48153c", "text": "\"In the case of Fidelity, the answer is \"\"no.\"\" Although when you leave your employer and roll over the account to an IRA, leaving it with Fidelity allowed me to keep money in those closed funds. My Roth IRA was not able/allowed to buy those funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b11f516841fc3a807f8bc801ad1a65d9", "text": "You can do this with no problem. What you want is a direct transfer style of rollover. This is simply where the money is transferred from your 401(k) custodian directly to your new IRA custodian. This will ensure there are no taxes or penalties on the balance. The key is that the money is moving directly to the new account without you having direct access to the balance. This keeps the money out of your hands in the eyes of the IRS. The process should look something like this: A few notes:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb3d2d163cda01d550de068316d767b", "text": "\"You have a Solo 401(k). You can fund it with cash, or I believe, with shares of your own company. You can't pull in other assets such as the ISOs from another employer. I see why that's desirable, but it's not allowed. You wrote \"\"this will mitigate all tax complications with employee stock options.\"\" But - you can't transfer the ISOs from your job into your Solo 401(k). As littleadv notes, it's self dealing. Once the ISO is exercised there's no hiding the gain into that 401(k).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2de3a1a064414253517f86d19d73ca32", "text": "littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities. The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d02e60ef882ba479adeb86ca67e26799", "text": "\"There are two different types of ISA; the \"\"Cash ISA\"\" for cash savings, and the \"\"Stocks and Shares ISA\"\" for stock market investing. You can transfer funds between these two different types of ISA. If your current cash ISA provider does not provide stocks and shares ISAs, then there may be a fee involved when transferring funds between two different providers. If I am reading your notation correctly, you have contributed the full allowance of GBP15,240 in both the current tax year and the previous tax year. Each year you can contribute GBP15,240 (currently) to your ISAs and this can be done in any combination of cash ISA and stocks and shares ISA. For example, you could put GBP5,240 into your cash ISA and GBP10,000 into your stocks and shares ISA. Regarding your questions : It is also important to understand that once you withdraw money from an ISA, it does not affect your previous contributions or allowances. For example, if you have used your full contribution allowance for the current year and chose to withdraw some funds, then you have still used your full contribution allowance and so you cannot redeposit these funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1e558425d3536d26b4dd208926dff9", "text": "You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd7094c42df899c0bd4099a5371df39", "text": "\"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "879ed5fc56d3d27b8e5d305f378abe11", "text": "Have you shopped around? I would agree that the fees seem high. The first question I would ask if if the .75% management fee is per year or per month? If it is per month, you will almost certainly lose money each year. A quick search shows that Fidelity will allow one to transfer their pensions into a self directed account. Here in the US, where we have 401Ks, it is almost always better to transfer them into something self directed once you leave an employer. Fidelity makes it really easy, and I always recommend them. (No affiliation.) Here in the US they actually pay you for you transferring money into your account. This can come in the form of free stock trades or money added to your account. I would encourage you to give them or their competitors a look in order to make an informed decision. Often times, a person with lowish balances, can't really afford to pay those high management fees. You might need in the 10s of millions before something like that makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e77c72351e5dd78b17a8fbf7908fd325", "text": "@JoeTaxpayer's answer outlines how to value it. Some other considerations: As I understand it, some public pensions may be tax-free if you still live in the state that is paying the pension. E.g. when a Massachusetts teacher receives pension, it is exempt from state taxes, but if that person moves to Vermont he will have to pay Vermont income tax on those payments. So if you plan to stay in the state post-retirement, this provides additional value. Pension payments aren't fully guaranteed by the PBGC. And not all pension plans are fully funded. Depending on the political and economic environment when you hit retirement, your retirement plan could suffer. (And if you aren't working, you may not have a union vote any more when the other working members are voting on contract amendments that affect pensions.) I'm not certain of all of the rules, but I hear news reports from time to time that formulas like what you've posted in the original question are changed through negotiation with the union. If you make an employment decision using the formula in year X and then the formula changes in year X+10, your expected pension payment will change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90d0c190348a1293aef06588932c858", "text": "No. Disclaimer - As a US educated fellow, I needed to search a bit. I found an article 7 Common SMSF Pension Errors. It implied that there are minimum payments required each year as with our US retirement accounts. These minimums are unrelated to the assets within the account, just based on the total value. The way I read that, there would be a point where you'd have to sell a property or partial interest to be sure you have the cash to distribute each year. I also learned that unlike US rules, which permit a distribution of stock as part of a required minimum distribution, in Australia, the distribution must be in cash (or a deposited check, of course.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd76b9c659a84acc192bdc6541303df9", "text": "the pots will be negligible, however this capital could be used better elsewhere if I was to withdraw them. You won't be able to withdraw the money. Notwithstanding the recent 'pension freedom' changes, money put into a pension is still inaccessible until age 55 at the very earliest, and probably later by the time you get there. You should have been Advised of this every time you enrolled into a scheme, although it may well have been buried in something you were given to read. The best you can do (and what I would recommend, although of course this post isn't Advice) is to transfer the pensions to a personal pension, for example a SIPP, wherein you will be able to control where the money is invested. Most SIPP providers will gladly help you with such transfers. Would it be beneficial to keep these smaller pots with their respected schemes The reason I suggest transferring is that leaving the funds in workplace schemes that are no longer being contributed to is a surefire way of finding yourself invested in poorly-performing neglected funds, earning money for no one beyond the scheme provider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510", "text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c498fc6442bc612d07bb7c6c878476a", "text": "\"Firstly (and this part is rather opinion-based) I would absolutely not think of making more pension contributions when you are currently totaling 6% of salary as \"\"over contributing\"\". There are some who argue that you should be putting a minimum of 20% away for retirement throughout your working life; you don't say how old you are / how close to retirement you are, but a common rule of thumb is to halve your age and put away that % of your salary into your pension. So I would certainly start with upping those contributions. I actually don't think it makes much difference whether you go for just your workplace pension versus a separate private one - in general you end up paying management fees that are a % of the value, so whether it is in one place or split doesn't cost any less. The \"\"all eggs in one basket\"\" syndrome is a possible argument but equally if you change jobs a few times and end up with half a dozen pension pots it can be very hard to stay on top of them all. If you end up with everything in one pot and then transfer it when you change jobs, it's easier to manage. Other options: ISA as you mentioned; on the plus side these are tax free. On the minus side, you can either go for a cash ISA which at the moment has very low rates of return, and/or a stocks and shares ISA which exposes you to risks in the stock market. If you have debt, consider paying it off early / overpaying. Student loans may or may not be the exception to this depending on your personal situation. Certainly if you have a mortgage you can save a vast amount by overpaying early. Other investments - stocks and shares, BTL housing, fine wines, Bitcoin, there are almost limitless possibilities. But it makes sense to max out the tax-efficient options before you look into these.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5ca629f1b11b17e8f1a7927ee7a4f31f	How to correctly track a covered call write (sell to open) in double-entry accounting?	[ { "docid": "89ec2c32f8875d784be9200e9b3c8c6d", "text": "\"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a \"\"flow\"\" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the \"\"Marked To Market\"\" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2(option price)(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2(0.21)(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been \"\"debited\"\" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e023f96804ea2e2d4da171230689d26", "text": "I skimmed the answer from mirage007, and it looked correct if you're going to set this up from scratch. Since you said you already have a system for tracking stocks, however, maybe you'd prefer to use that. It should handle almost everything you need: Note that only the last of these actually ties the option and the underlying together in your accounting system. Other than that case, the option behaves in your accounting system as if it were a stock. (It does not behave that way in the market, but you need to manage that risk profile outside of the double-entry accounting system.)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7aed4fdea82e42dc1c111d0e275f97b8", "text": "I’m going to answer this because: Accounting books only reflect the dollar value of inventories. Which means if you look at the balance sheet of McDonalds, you will not see how many bags of French fries are remaining at their storage facility, you will only see the total value at cost basis. Your requirement for noting the number of shares purchased is not part of the double entry accounting system. When you transfer $10000 from bank to broker, the entries would be: The bank’s name and the broker’s name will not appear on the balance sheet. When you purchase 50 shares at $40 per share, the accounting system does not care about the number of shares or the price. All it cares is the $2000 total cost and the commission of $10. You have two choices, either place $10 to an expense account, or incorporate it into the total cost (making it $2010). The entries for the second method would be: Now your balance sheet would reflect: What happens if the price increases from $40 per share to $50 per share tomorrow? Do nothing. Your balance sheet will show the cost of $2010 until the shares are sold or the accounting period ends. It will not show the market value of $2500. Instead, the Portfolio Tracker would show $2500. The most basic tracker is https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio . Later if you finally sell the shares at $50 per share with $10 commission: Again, the number of shares will not be reflected anywhere in the accounting system. Only the total proceeds from the sale matters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63de0f546b4e4223a4300761fc8c2f5e", "text": "If you open an account, you sign a contract, of which you get a copy. That ultimately proves that the account exists. As for the money in an account: Double-entry accounting makes it more or less impossible for that to be simply wrong. An account balance is not just a number; it's a sum of transactions, each of which has a corresponding entry in another account where the money came from or went to. What is possible (but extremely rare given the effort banks go to in order to ensure the correctness of their systems) is for transactions to get lost or stuck (because they often have multiple stages), or to have a wrong source or target, or amount. If a transaction gets lost, it's the same as if it never happened - the money is still in the sender's account and you have to convince them to send it to you. If a transaction got stuck, i.e. money was sent but did not arrive, the sender can request their bank to investigate what happened and fix the problem. If an erroneous transaction shows up on your account, you can do the same. Double-entry accounting ensures that this is always possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a", "text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cc4b08bb104d39397a5e68f8d951d9f", "text": "Is it just -344.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -110.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "451e7176d208d3ff2634c0612d4b61bb", "text": "The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c10c959c65c599fb50b396f3f0c03689", "text": "\"If your shares get called on stock at a price below what you paid for the stock, your gain or loss depends on what premium you got for the options you sold. \"\"can I deliver shares at that assigned strike using margin or additional capital if I have it? Can the broker just take care of it and let me collect the time premium? \"\" You don't need margin or any cash because you already hold the shares. A covered call means your cash requirements are 'covered'. So they'll just buy your shares at the strike price of $50. And you still get to keep the premium (which you should have gotten when you sold the covered call). You only need cash or margin when you've sold an uncovered call or put.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44e7a7cb513b863434091609d159ded7", "text": "I'm responsible for all our hedging. Since we sell the energy to end users we do mostly fixed buys, swaps and calls. I'm a excel guru and dabble a little in SQL. we have Crystal Ball as well but i have no idea how to use it. I guess I'm trying to figure out if there is a tool that people use to help me analyze the spreads. or perhaps some reading material to help me through this. This is what i've been working towards for so long and i really don't want to fuck this up", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e56536646a6bb78b874992c3447e0b7", "text": "Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b91c2a5e1ef4d44ef284683e67465e84", "text": "Yes, as long as you write a call against your stock with a strike price greater than or equal to the previous day's closing price, with 30 or more days till experation there will be no effect on the holding period of your stock. Like you mentioned, unqualified covered calls suspend the holding period of your stock. For example you sell a deep in the money call (sometimes called the last write) on a stock you have held for 5 years, the covered call is classified as unqualified, the holding period is suspened and the gain or loss on the stock will be treated as short-term. Selling out of the money calls or trading in an IRA account keeps things simple. The details below have been summarized from an article I found at investorsguide.com. The article also talks about the implications of rolling a call forward and tax situations where it may be advantageous to write unqualified covered calls (basically when you have a large deferred long term loss). http://www.investorguide.com/article/12618/qualified-covered-calls-special-rules-wo/ Two criterion must be met for a covered call to be considered a qualified covered call (QCC). 1) days to expiration must be greater than 30 2) strike price must be greater than or equal to the first available in the money strike price below the previous day's closing price for a particular stock. Additionally, if the previous day's closing price is $25 or less, the strike price of the call being sold must be greater than 85% of yesterday's closing price. 2a) If the previous day's closing price is greater than 60.01 and less than or equal to $150, days to experation is between 60-90, as long as the strike price of the call is greater than 85% of the previous days close and less than 10 points in the money, you can write a covered call two strikes in the money 2c) If the previous day's closing price is greater than $150 and days till expiration is greater than 90, you can write a covered call two strikes in the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "accc04f0a365fcdbee6fc05249bea151", "text": "A tax liability account is a common thing. In my own books I track US-based social insurance (Medicare and Social Security) using such an account. At the time I pay an employee, a tax liability is incurred, increasing my tax liability account; at the same time, on the other end of the double-entry, I increase a tax expense account. Notably, though, the US IRS does not necessarily require that the tax is paid at the time it is incurred. In my case I incur a liability twice a month, but I only have to pay the taxes quarterly. So, between the time of incurring and the time of remitting/paying, the amount is held in the tax liability account. At the time that I remit payment to the IRS, the transaction will decrease both my checking account and also, on the other end of the double-entry, my liability account. To answer your question in short, use an expense account for your other-side-account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "710a087f30bc748887eb5a9f90bc93ea", "text": "I'd say yes, and hope that my anecdotal evidence serves as proof. My IRA is not a margin account. It can't be. I attempt to create a covered call, buying a stock at say $20, and selling a call for $4, for net $16 cost. The account only had $1610 at the time, and the trades go through just fine. Yes, I needed to enter as a limit order, at the same time, a single order with the $16 debit limit. If this is not enough proof, I'd be curious - why not? The option proceeds must clear, of course, which it does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e70f0066d19eaedec124fcd4763bf86e", "text": "\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0", "text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
29360273075a8abe4a36c713f2348dcb	What is the purpose of the wash sale rule?	[ { "docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52", "text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22134f97c9279b484342d04421ff2d5e", "text": "\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebfbaca3d0576a839fb89d08386384d2", "text": "\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b650fc4e0e907668b3089ab88e802163", "text": "Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fa28e9558c7144e3d2a10d8a1b98f942", "text": "I agree. I don't really see a good argument (not that there isn't one to be made) in the article saying how this is unusual or illegal. Why did the managers sell such a small amount of their holdings? Could they have sold more? Is this selling behavior and scheduling at all abnormal? The article fails to address a number of important questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00ead6e1e4accaf77de20977700dc957", "text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4a60c5cb89fe77e9a260cbedb2ba039", "text": "\"Didn't the US Government break up US Steel and Standard Oil with the Sherman Act for doing just this? monopolizing all aspects of an industry in effort to set prices(eventually artificially high). Specifically section 4.3 of the wiki article on Sherman act Violations of the \"\"rule of reason\"\": A totality of the circumstances test, asking whether the challenged practice promotes or suppresses market competition. Unlike with per se violations, intent and motive are relevant when predicting future consequences. The rule of reason is said to be the \"\"traditional framework of analysis\"\" to determine whether Section 1 is violated.[25] The court analyzes \"\"facts peculiar to the business, the history of the restraining, and the reasons why it was imposed,\"\"[26] to determine the effect on competition in the relevant product market.[27] A restraint violates Section 1 if it unreasonably restrains trade.[28]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act I don't care because I have a horse in the race, this is purely an academic question. if they start a delivery service it will directly effect the cost of shipping via ups usps and fedex and create an unfair market advantage? I'm also not saying amazon can't start a delivery service but i am interested in how they would have to go about doing so. would it have to be willing to ship non-amazon stuff? surcharges?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b21a35563393b33d1eaed4bd4598792a", "text": "Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3c158f5defdeaf2d702e47a703246d", "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).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b56a85f57234547f3c59a0a0c730b0b9", "text": "Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6c391040d0712fa20ce2a9e1f391565", "text": "Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be4904f4285c1e302cbb7256d8baa7e9", "text": "\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \"\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\"\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ab1b49e63a3dba39eff858cce1d5227", "text": "Ignoring brokerage fees and the wash-sale rule (both of which are hazardous to your health), and since the 15% LTCG tax is only on the gain, the stock would have to drop 15% of the gain in price since you originally purchased it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03cd2798097762b25fb89bff28c5dde5", "text": "\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f21c3868a05636a714b94a393a6072d", "text": "\"There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the \"\"ok\"\" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f473b458132ee191e69ad853f17ad66", "text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b046169ed068a319df90d5012e5a886", "text": "How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second? Be interesting to see what would happen if every transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beeeb96ffc4ce5c759aa398a60474280", "text": "\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c913aa51881967e18ada87b98694a77", "text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ae7790a7915f0ea9e85eb14b65e27d67	Can PayPal transfer money automatically from my bank account if I link it in PayPal?	[ { "docid": "0f7cc2ac0ed54ac2c5192299ce554b1a", "text": "I have a PayPal account that I have linked to my bank account. My PayPal balance is always $0. When I make a purchase with PayPal, PayPal will automatically withdraw the funds from my bank account to make the purchase. PayPal does not ask my permission for each purchase. I probably gave them permission to do this when I linked my bank account. Or perhaps the PayPal purchase process includes this permission. I don't read the text closely. Or I should add, that I probably read it at one point, but since I do it on a regular basis, I don't read it now, and I don't recall what is on the checkout page.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccddadb6a6b2cd8b543980deda3b6df1", "text": "See this help article from Paypal about payment methods for purchases. When you don’t have a PayPal balance or don’t have enough in your PayPal balance, we’ll use your bank account as the default payment method unless you select a different way to pay. So yes, Paypal will automatically deduct from your bank account when you make a purchase, unless you link another payment method and make that your default.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41b1dc88dca2576c9ddf6131b6f7343f", "text": "\"As the other answers stated: Yes PayPal will transfer money from your bankaccount automatically if your PayPal balance isn't sufficient. Let's add some proof to the story: (Note, I am in the EU, specifically the Netherlands, situation might be different in other parts of the world) If I login to PayPal and go to my wallet, I have a section that looks like this: If I click on it, I am presented with a screen with details about the connection. Note the \"\"Direct debit instruction\"\". If I click on the \"\"view\"\" link I am presented with the following text (emphasis mine): [snip some arbitrary personal details] This authorisation allows (A) PayPal to send instructions to your bank account and (B) your bank to debit your account in accordance with the instructions from PayPal. As part of your rights, you are entitled to a refund from your bank under the Terms and Conditions of your agreement with your bank. A refund must be claimed within 8 weeks starting from the date on which your account was debited. Your rights are explained in a statement that you can obtain from your bank. Below this text is a button to delete the authorization.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "254a3cf1337bbbe3d4f4c4b6db78604e", "text": "\"Practically, as an ebay buyer I have never seen any way to keep a balance in paypal and top it off from my bank account under my own control. It is all automated, and as I seem to recall linking with a bank account or credit card was necessary to get some kind of \"\"confirmed address\"\" status out of Paypal so that eBay sellers would be more willing to trust me as a buyer and know that my shipping address was legitimate. As a seller, I can keep a balance at paypal from eBay sales and ask for it back in my checking account instead of keeping it in paypal to purchase items later. In terms of advice, in my opinion the paypal transfer limits or how to set them is not the answer needed to protect one's finances in this situation. In an error or cyberattack scenario, you have to consider the possibility that any limits are exceeded. When your online activity of any kind is linked to a bank account, any amount in that linked bank account is probably at risk. It doesn't really matter if it is paypal, or a server rental account, or amazon. If it can be abused, and it is linked to your bank account, then someone might abuse it and leave you with a bill. That you might be ultimately victorious is of little consequence if someone steals money you really needed right now and the devotion of time and energy to \"\"work the bureaucracy\"\" to get your money back will distract from performance at work or school. So the next step up in protection is to firewall the bank account you use for online purchases from your other bank accounts where your salary is received. The best way to do it is with different banks instead of merely different accounts, but that is also the most inconvenient for filling the account back up. Nowadays -- at least in the USA -- at several banks you can open a \"\"free\"\" checking account for a minimum deposit like $500 or $1000 that must stay in the account to be fee free at the end of each month. Whatever balance you keep in the account you use for your \"\"risky\"\" online transactions will be the maximum that can disappear in an incident, downside being you have to feed the account from time to time to keep it above the minimum as you make purchases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e48346505bbfa9c6c2211e74bf594c8", "text": "The answer is no. Paypal will always ask for permission before adding or withdrawing money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29b476da538f86a6a60da778dd53967d", "text": "\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "56b01badf3f52009978c270470a6887f", "text": "There's no requirement to use these OTP systems to process Internet transactions. Some merchants are using them, some are not. PayPal does not since they are not the receiver of the money but rather a merchant processor - so they don't assume any risk anyway and wouldn't bother.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b42d7c0eee2c12fa6c1363774add697", "text": "Paypal does it differently in different countries, depending on how the system in that country works. That is why it is not a service that is available everywhere - rules and systems differ. In the US it is done through the ACH system (US internal inter-bank transfer system). It is the same system used to process checks. I know that in several countries, PayPal deposits/withdraws money through credit cards (it is not possible in the US to the best of my knowledge). In the US we can withdraw money from PayPal by check or ACH transfer to the bank (or by using their own debit card).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a33ec7445a21ab94474f38711807a86a", "text": "If you set up two Paypal accounts (one linked to your UK bank account and one to your US bank account and get them both properly verified) you should be able to transfer the money for free as far as I know. You would have to fund the transfer directly from your UK bank account (not via a credit card).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05f2384f318fceeaea2560c1da8ccd3d", "text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9bbd3fcde00bab63b637bf4aa852465", "text": "No it is not required to create a trade account or a current account. If the payment is via Paypal, as per Indian laws, it would automatically get credited to your savings account in 7 days. You would still need to declare this as income and pay tax accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e0683a8583aa27b8e29bce069b34820", "text": "It is not ! Of course you can transfer your monies to your account in another country. Its a different story if you were doing it for someone else and if the the money was not legitimate - then it would shade off into money laundering.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c4aa5aa6b8c8d5d06a84a7f9401c40", "text": "No. You can initiate SWIFT payments from Bank A, whenever Bank A is open for business. The transaction takes around 2-5 days for it to complete depending on the currency pair and countries involved. Once you initiate the payment, the Bank A sends it to SWIFT Network which in turn send it to Bank B. Whenever Bank B is open for business it would process the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55", "text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4d79bbf33fad672df6b4207fd7e95a9", "text": "You can consider opening accounts either in Paypal or Google Wallet. In this way, you link your bank information to these accounts and the only information you need to provide your tenant is your e-mail id. Its safe and in this scenario -- just money transfer through bank account, there is no fee either for the sender (your tenant) or the receiver (you).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2baba78dfdae88f69f0fe2537b25cb3a", "text": "According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96ffb13a982db73087976ced7d534403", "text": "I'm guessing that you've reached the value limit of a payment that can be made without linking your account to a bank account. While you want privacy, PayPal wants to not be a money launderer. You may need to seek an alternative way to pay for this if you're trying to be private about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b3f149abaf0264fbeac33ef91c6df2", "text": "I'd contact paypal to request clarification. In the meantime, most banks will credit outgoing transfers immediately but process later, and only debit incoming after it passes through a processing team. So while the money will go out right away it may take a few days for your bank to actually process the withdrawal and the subsequent reversal from Paypal. In reality Paypal doesn't usually recieve the money immediately either, but they extend you credit to speed up things. Either way, it doesn't hurt to contact Paypal to make sure they have reverted the amount to your bank, and if they confirm such you can also reach out to your bank and ask where the money is stuck. Usually delays like this will happen in the interface between two unrelated financial institutions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f1df7e4f7aa6193075c0a9d820d7d96", "text": "I was having issues with transferring money from my UK bank (HSBC) to my paypal... HSBC was asking for an IBAN code to complete the transaction. I couldn't find an IBAN code listed anywhere on my Paypal acct. What finally solved it for me was when I entered the last 4 digits of the Paypal account number, HSBC then threw up a message saying that payee was listed in my payees and to do a search for payees. (I had never manually entered my Paypal as a payee, but it was there in a huge list of companies already known and listed by HSBC.) Then all I had to do was put in the reference number Paypal had given and the amount. It was in my paypal account within minutes. Hope this helps :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c1f9be2456ff2e8a94d0978c0b7d7c6", "text": "With the information you have given, I would say never. Remember the banker is a salesman, and the line of credit is the product. If you don't need to borrow the money for something specific, then you don't need the line of credit in the first place. Even if you did need something I would tell you to save up and pay cash for it. On the tax advantage: There is none, in the US you can deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes but it's not a tax credit it's a tax deductions. Let me explain further: You spend $10,000 on mortgage interest, and you're in the 25% tax bracket. You send the bank $10,000 in return you get at tax savings of $2500. You are still in the hole $7500 You would have been better off not taking out the loan in the first place. On the Emergency Fund: You should have 3 - 6 months of expenses in cash, like a money market account. This money isn't for investing, it's like insurance, and you don't make money on insurance. The last thing you want to do is have to go into debt right in the middle of an emergency. Say you lost your job, the last thing you would want to do is borrow money, right at the time you have no income to pay it back. The bank is under no obligation to maintain you credit limit and can without notice reduce it, they can in most cases call the loan balance due in full with little or no notice as well. Both of those are likely scenarios if the bank were to become aware of the fact that you were unemployed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b4d3c2ebd30bc79d663beed4223cbea", "text": "My question is: absent the corporate shield, to what extent are partners liable for a serious disaster or accident such as the BP Gulf incident. IN other words, if an oil pipeline had a major spill or explosion in which there were serious liabilities, to what extent would this effect the owners of a listed partnership beyond the effects of corporate liability on a common stock holding?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bdc470cb1cd205d4d6c5ea956a44e531	Should I Have Received a 1099-G?	[ { "docid": "f5bb48681b5df3512b1d651714b729d6", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34e032c7020209c3c64acd53e45a49c3", "text": "If you don't itemize your deductions, your state tax refund is not considered income to you. Even if you didn't receive the actual 1099-G, you know how much refund you got, so you can calculate if you need to add it back to your income this year using the worksheet on page 23 of the instructions.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e468951d2762615d46c8acc2c2e2ffd8", "text": "Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4f1e4c220a509fa2efa7fcb2010e100", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe49f26f27ffe70f80550ff0b9d841a", "text": "\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a6c8b85bac2aa40c815d4671c636b1d", "text": "Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68a64f99ce3e7b39eb632a8f6aefc86a", "text": "You are expected to file 1099 for each person you pay $600 a year. I.e.: not a one time payment, but the total over the course of the year. Since we don't know how much and what else you paid - we cannot answer this question. The real question you're asking is that if you're treating the enterprise as a hobby, whether you're supposed to file 1099s at all. The answer to that question is yes. You should talk to your tax adviser (a EA/CPA licensed in your state) about this, and whether it is the right thing for you to do treating this as a hobby at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45390f1ecd215cbde66ecaa8e7578bd6", "text": "\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89fa8f9a3a38e609737c828955c8a6c1", "text": "You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a218b268aee293bf7feabf28e3b83c0f", "text": "I fell into a similar situation as you. I spent a lot of time trying to understand this, and the instructions leave a lot to be desired. What follows is my ultimate decisions, and my rationale. My taxes have already been filed, so I will let you know if I get audited! 1.) So in cases like this I try to understand the intent. In this case section III is trying to understand if pre-tax money was added to your HSA that you were not entitled too. As you describe, this does not apply to you. I would think you should be ok not including section III (I didn't.) HOWEVER, I am not a tax-lawyer or even a lawyer! 2.) I do not believe these are medical distributions From the 8889 doc.... Qualified HSA distribution. This is a distribution from a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is contributed by your employer directly to your HSA. This is a one-time distribution from any of these arrangements. The distribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the HSA and is subject to the testing period rules shown below. See Pub. 969 for more information. So I don't think you have anything to report here. 3.) As you have no excess this line can just be zero. 4.) From the 8889 doc This is a distribution from your traditional IRA or Roth IRA to your HSA in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. Again, I don't think this applies to you so you can enter zero. 5.) This one is the easiest. You can always get this money tax free if you use it for qualified medical expenses. From the 8889 Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse, or dependents are excludable from gross income. (See the line 15 instructions for information on medical expenses of dependents not claimed on your return.) You can receive distributions from an HSA even if you are not currently eligible to have contributions made to the HSA. However, any part of a distribution not used to pay qualified medical expenses is includible in gross income and is subject to an additional 20% tax unless an exception applies. I hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42491be125040c117b0ed28d837d1b74", "text": "Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20031b48e19a5aacb7b99bebca187c28", "text": "\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c00f25b09b21b595e67585e394865268", "text": "If the company pays for Group Term Life Insurance, some of that premium payment may be taxable. If memory serves, that's what's included in W-2 Box C. W-2 Box C has no bearing on Schedule C.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e00c1083e5d0f95b58bbdb1a5f44a75", "text": "\"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an \"\"independent contractor\"\", and is not \"\"billing corp-to-corp\"\" then: In summary: References:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6a63bb1abd8ee6d5c4b1cde0087a9f", "text": "I took littleadv's advice and talked to an accountant today. Regardless of method of payment, my US LLC does not have to withhold taxes or report the payment as payments to contractors (1099/1042(S)) to the IRS; it is simply a business expense. He said this gets more complicated if the recipient is working in the US (regardless of nationality), but that is not my case", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64b9a133df2ccc0d6dd74246e71482b3", "text": "So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
594dd5fdd50e8bbc3ed1ed566f09e62b	How to protect yourself from fraud when selling on eBay UK	[ { "docid": "4578560b62ee967382c9c9a2927bd89f", "text": "Just ship using a reputable courier (definitely not Yodel or Hermes!) that requires and obtains a surname and signature which you can view on their website (Citylink, Parcel Force to name a couple). Then remember to submit the tracking details when you mark the item as shipped on eBay. If the buyer is still brazen enough to claim the item never arrived, Paypal (in my experience) don't even entertain their claim. If however they claim the item arrived damaged/not as described, it could be trickier to defend. I'd recommend thoroughly documenting your item with photographs and recording the serial number, just in case you need to provide the details to Paypal. Again, in my experience, this has been enough to protect me from any fraudulent claims. To answer your second question, I don't believe eBay permits you to specify 'No Paypal', but if they did then yes, bank transfer is 100% safe (short of someone using stolen money to pay for the item, in which case you'd be guilty of money laundering thanks to the UK's wonderful laws on such things...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d04f02096790013dad061e7c858f67f", "text": "Paypal UK has a page here: https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/seller-protection Basically they don't just take the seller's word for it, there is a resolution process. The biggest thing you can do is make sure that you deliver it in a way that requires signature.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9ef4f6cf01afc7d380a31da26055fea9", "text": "\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "860266c5f091ca5d690561f10b47edb1", "text": "\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9385dc51d9996dcea24e091cc49cf5e", "text": "Sap just developed a fraud detection module for their ERP suite in conjuction with EY. It offers live fraud scanning so you can stop a flagged transaction before a transfer is carried out. I saw a presentation an it looks pretty powerfull although it is only in the early stages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a75442cbd567ed483dd72e2a6c0a1a4", "text": "The general advice seems to be to sell online. But my issue here is that, a large amount of stock would likely come from Etsy creators - Why would a customer choose my online store to buy an item when they could buy the exact same item directly from the creator for £x cheaper?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5be35d73911a8e4bb1ee71beffac30b", "text": "I'm not a seller, but I see this as good for those who are selling bad items, but also a big opportunity for scammers. I wonder what is the limits on it, I hope they have an abuse system in place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44eeacf3e01e8a9cfbae847a310f1752", "text": "So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55ef0977d2db39b710caae2cdde4799c", "text": "That's a nice thought. But I doubt it would happen. I sell on EBay and I was on the phone every day for a month over some scammers and ne'er do wells. They didn't do anything special to help me. Lost a lot of money. Just think of the millions of cases like that every day. They're better off having a blanket rule, even if it screws over the seller.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea300057d65e1606fdea10a2662839c8", "text": "\"I have 2 PayPal accounts for this purpose (with different email addresses). The first account is tied to my real email address, and has my real name, phone and home address associated with it. This account is also connected to my bank account and credit cards. For riskier transactions where I don't need physical delivery (or will accept delivery to my local post-office in cases where I don't trust the seller with my personal details) I use my secondary account, which has a secondary email address of mine, and a fake name and with a fake address, it is not connected to any external accounts. To send or receive money \"\"anonymously\"\" I first send money from my real account to my fake account (inter-account transfers are free with PayPal), and then send the money to the seller from the fake account. This is in violation of PayPal's terms of service, but I've been using this system for the past 5+ years without any issues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b324d756f11286a3f2de6da4a67af60b", "text": "\"In the UK, using a credit card adds a layer of protection for consumers. If something goes wrong or you bought something that was actually a scam, if you inform the credit card company with the necessary documents they will typically clear the balance for that purchase (essentially the burden of 'debt' is passed to them and they themselves will have to chase up the necessary people). Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act I personally use my credit card when buying anything one would consider as \"\"consumer spending\"\" (tvs, furniture ect). I then pay off the credit card immediately. This gives me the normal benefits of the credit card (if you get cashback or points) PLUS the additional consumer credit protection on all my purchases. This, in my opinion is the most effective way of using your credit card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86dd4affe11facfd623959bc8147d642", "text": "If an item costs £10 excluding VAT, and you buy it from a VAT registered company, you will have to pay £12. You sell it for any price you like, and you don't add VAT. Let's say you set the price at £15 and sell 1000 items for £15. You take £15,000, you spent £12,000, you make £3,000 profit in your pocket and you'll pay taxes according to your profits (£3,000). It doesn't really matter that VAT was involved, it just affects the price that you pay. If you mostly trade with private customers and not with companies, being not VAT registered is a good idea, since by not having to add VAT you can keep your prices lower. It's different if you trade mostly with VAT-registered companies. In that example, if private customers are willing to pay £15 but not more, if you were VAT registered, you couldn't just charge £15 + VAT = £18, because your customers would stop buying. So you'd have to charge £12.50 + VAT = £15 and make less money. But if you sell to a company, it doesn't make a difference to them if they pay £15 without VAT or £15 + VAT = £18. You have to send the VAT to HMRC, but you can subtract the £2,000 that you paid yourself, so you make £2,000 more profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fca11c4ffec55524e4ced645bc4a098", "text": "I think you need to have paypal for eBay selling, just for one reason: people will avoid buying from you if they can't pay by paypal. It decreases significantly your selling.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be8ac7ecbba0a10b649f7028804137c", "text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f203d4fad8c85d70ab23f49029d03c", "text": "This is either laundering money or laundering non-money. All the other answers point out how a cheque or bank transfer will take days to actually clear. That is a red herring! There are lots of ways to illegally transfer real money out of existing accounts. Stolen cheque books, stolen banking details (partly in connection with stolen smartphones and credit cards) and cards, money transfers from other people duped in a similar manner as you are: it is much easier to steal money than invent it, and it takes quite longer until stolen rather than invented money will blow up at the banks. All of those payments will likely properly clear but not leave you in actual legal possession of money. People will notice the missing money and notify police and banks and you will be on the hook for paying back all of it. Cheques and transfers from non-existing accounts, in contrast, tend to blow up very fast and thus are less viable for this kind of scam as the time window for operating the scam is rather small. Whether or not the cheque actually clears is about as relevant of whether or not the Rolls Royce you are buying for $500 because the owner has an ingrown toe nail and cannot press down the accelerator any more has four wheels. Better hope for the Rolls to be imaginary because then you'll only be out of $500 and that's the end of it. If it is real, your trouble is only starting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a3e7d460ce8ded7774fc6fbcc04ec54", "text": "Some (most) credit cards have a way to get a one-time use number. If that is an available option for one of your cards, that is probably the way to do the very risky transaction. These numbers can be good for only one purchase, or for multiple purchases with a single vendor. This will limit your exposure because they won't have access to your entire account. Also review your fraud protections with your credit card. With the single use number, it won't matter if you use the electronic form or the email. Just make sure you keep the confirmation email or a screen capture of the form.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42", "text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0b5d36b80827ddb048adfbdc1fce0c00	Can you buy gift cards at grocery store to receive a higher reward rate?	[ { "docid": "5823db14aaace486dab89c419822af6d", "text": "If you go to a grocery store and purchase retail gift cards along with other products, and you pay with a credit card, your credit card company generally does not know what you spent the money on; they don't get an itemized receipt.* If this is the case with your rewards card, then yes, you would get the cashback reward on the gift cards, because all the credit card company knows is that you spent $100 at the grocery store; they don't know (or care, really) that $50 of it was for an Olive Garden gift card. This, of course, should be fairly easy to test. Buy the gift card, wait for your statement, and see if they included the purchase when calculating your rewards. * Note: I don't have an American Express card, but from some quick googling I see that it is possible that American Express does actually receive itemized billing details on your purchases from some merchants. If your grocery store is sending this data to AmEx, it is possible that the gift cards could be excluded from rewards. But again, I suggest you just test it out and see.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e76f5296cf89f9128ebfc4202d23692", "text": "In a similar situation I wrote about How I Made $4,000+ on a Cash Back Credit Card Offer. The total was actually $4550, and was from an insane offer from a new credit card my bank advertised. 10% cash back on all spending during the first 90 days. I wondered if gift card purchases counted, and more than store cards, I saw that Visa gift cards with a $500 value sold for a $4.95 fee. A 1% hit. It would have been foolish to load up, and realize that they were somehow excluded, so I bought 2 and followed the transaction on line. When I saw the 10% credit, I went full steam, and bought these, $2000 at a time, as that was the limit CVS imposed. In the end, I stopped at $50,000. (And the bank killed the online offer about $25K into this, but still honored my 90 days) Yes, I had to make payments mid cycle to avoid the card limit ($20K), but in the end, the bit of effort paid off. It took a bit over a year and a half to burn through them. In hindsight, I'd do it for $100K if the opportunity came up. Cash in the bank is earning near zero. TL:DR Make a small purchase and confirm your card gives you the bonus you expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "950898f483d9ce6377d07e9f54f1e44b", "text": "\"Understand that buying a Starbucks gift card at the grocery store to receive 6% back on your coffee rather than 6% back on your groceries is an exploit of a flaw in the benefits program, not a feature. It's definitely not a blanket yes or no answer, the only way to find out is to try. Separately, I don't know why you would find this \"\"concerning.\"\" This will vary greatly between merchants and cards. There will always be new points churning exploits, they don't last forever and you can't expect every customer service rep to be well versed in methods employed to juice cardmember programs. Hell, a number of years ago one person figured out that he could buy rolls of $1 coins from the US treasury with free shipping and no additional fees. This guy was literally buying thousands of dollars of cash each month to deposit and pay his credit card bill; completely against the terms of the treasury program for distributing the $1 coins. A number of people had their cards and points/cash back revoked for that one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3f579b87cbfc4c757f73a01266ff8a", "text": "\"(I agree with the answers above; would just like to make a couple of additional points.) It's a good and simple strategy to try it out with a small amount as suggested by @JoeTaxpayer♦. It's also generally safe to assert that card issuers currently don't receive or actively look at itemized transaction details. But that does not mean they cannot in the future. Some stores utilize level 3 data processing, which tells the card issuers exactly what you bought in a transaction. An example of level 3 data being utilized to reject rewards is with Discover, which announced a 10% cashback reward for any transactions made with Apple Pay last year. It later introduced an additional term to exclude gift card purchases. And this has been verified to be effective - no more reward on gift card purchases; clawback of cashback on existing gift card transactions. As far as I know, Amex does receive and look at some level 3 data retrospectively. That does not necessarily mean they will claw back your cashback after initially rewarding the 6%. But it might show up if you ever trigger an account review, and be used as evidence of your \"\"abuse\"\" of the program (which BTW is defined rather subjectively). There has been many cases of account shutdowns because of this. Card issuers are also trying to do a better job preventing \"\"abuses\"\" by proactively setting caps on rewards (as opposed to closing those accounts afterwards and taking the rewards away altogether). Given the trend in recent years, I have to speculate that at some point the card issuers would put clear language in the terms against gift card purchase and enforce it effectively (if they haven't already). This reward game is constantly changing. It's good while it lasts. Just be prepared and don't get surprised when things go south.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d05eb6c32d1e54ec6b7e038b6de18383", "text": "I actually just did that with my Chase Freedom card. They rotate categories every 3 months, and from April-June it was 5% back at grocery stores. So I bought a ton of gas cards and got my 5% back. Next I figured out I would be clever and buy a ton of store gift cards (grocery gift cards) right at the end of the quarter, then use those in the future to purchase gas cards. Well, I just tried that a couple days ago and discovered the store refuses to sell a gift card if you're paying with a gift card! So now I'm stuck with $1,000 in grocery cards until I use them in actual grocery purchases haha One of the things about this grocery store is they partner with a gas station on their rewards program. They offer 10 cents off a gallon with every $100 spent in store, and they double it to 20 cents off a gallon if you buy $100 in gift cards. Then on the back of the receipt is a coupon for 10 cents off per gallon -- which they double on Tuesdays. Unfortunately I think I'm one of the only people that takes this much advantage of the program :-/ Side note: I actually just changed the billing cycle of my Chase Freedom card to end on the 24th of the month. That way I can charge a bunch of rewards in the final 6-7 days of the quarter. And if I have a $0 balance on the 24th, my bill isn't due for 7 weeks -- interest free! And Chase Freedom has never cared if you purchase gift cards with their quarterly rewards program. I also gave them a courtesy email giving the specific store and $$$ amount that was going to be charged, and of course they still called me with a 'fraud alert'...", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "dda027e4c7ce9e11a7a5ef7dee1ae84a", "text": "Kroger is the largest grocery chain in the U.S. and generally not seen as 'expensive'. Unless you are going to Aldi or Save-A-Lot, I don't think you are going to find anything 'lower priced'. You do know you don't have to provide real information when signing up for those cards, right? That's basically a non-issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb5d9d9e02c33392ccae4b67b32b3344", "text": "Those extra treat points have to come from somewhere, and they come from American Express charging merchants a higher percentage than Visa or Mastercard. So it's less attractive for those merchants to accept it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e37fee42606d87823a1ba83b3875c0bc", "text": "\"These days, just about any bank has the ability to schedule payments for free. I usually use this. My wife has a Chase MasterCard, because they used to automatically credit the 1% cash back monthly. Now they \"\"improved\"\" the card, and you need to go online and redeem the rewards, either in $20 increments, or to pay off a previous purchase, which seems to be a real gimmick. They probably get back the 1% cash back for that purchase if you use this feature. Weird people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6e91792fbbfd98238e6a5d560df128", "text": "\"While I think this is generally inadvisable, there are sites and communities dedicated to \"\"points churning\"\" credit card reward programs. In general, no there is no easy way to get cash from a credit card, and receive the spending rewards, and not pay fees well in excess of your rewards value. However, there are people who figure out ways to do this kind of thing. Like buying prepaid Visa cards $500 at a time from drug stores on a 5% bonus rewards month. Or buying rolls of $1 coins from the US treasury with free shipping. The issue is the source of the fees. When you spend money on your card the merchant pays a fee. When you get cash from an ATM not only is there no merchant remitting a fee there is an ATM operator and a network both charging fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe200868faf55dc6ca45e31c8426e5a3", "text": "Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb3ec715d8b422ce3e1ee805b3c85dc", "text": "Interchange fees. Every time a customer buys something on credit, the seller pays a fee. They're not allowed to itemize that fee and pass it on to the buyer, but they can offer a cash payment discount. In short, rewards cards are a system of collective bargaining for buyers versus sellers. Some argue it drives prices up for everyone who isn't a cardholder, but I think the evidence is mixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16e3a08b056b997d41b9c57d6840c168", "text": "I am confused as to why the author thinks people wouldn't do this. If target wants to hand out free money they can be my guest. edit: Target, PM me if you're interested in this sort of arrangement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce484d7657417c8078f20d1c5295f04", "text": "Since the POS machines are tied into the register it would be rather difficult to overcharge with an attentive patron. They would have to add an additional item onto the purchase in order to increase the total before running the card (very few system allow cashback to be requested from the teller side), and most machines have audible cues every time an item is added. If you are paying attention to the teller and not talking/playing on your phone (or other distracting things) then I would say the feasibility is probably very low. Except for rare exceptions while traveling I only shop at locations where I can see the total on the register, and make sure it looks correct before handing my card over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa12d914340adbd9d3898ad63ab22e8", "text": "What's being left unsaid here is that Target, and every other retailer, knows that only about 30% of gift cards are ever used. So they're still raking in money, and do so knowing that they're tricking well-intentioned customers into exchanging actual money for play money that likely won't be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0460d4f75f328c9d5a837606143553ea", "text": "(At least in the UK) a company named Card Factory has been very successful in undercutting the competition using the classic pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap strategy with less glamorous high-street locations than 'traditional' stores. Interestingly it doesn't seem to have spawned either competition at their price point or lowered the general prices for greetings cards even in low-margin businesses like supermarkets. A quick glance at their annual report suggests they're doing reasonably well with this approach.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "572c773bf528c48321a4117ada0f7f4b", "text": "I did this at taco bell basically. Can't believe It worked. Free combo when you buy a $20 gift card. Then I just did it again and paid with mu previous gift card. They let me do it for about a week", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394d3185971fd3b7cb4f7f7da47d51fc", "text": "\"A \"\"balance transfer\"\" is paying one credit card with another. You probably get offers in the mail to do this all of the time. As other posters have noted, however, this usually comes with finance fees rather than the rewards that you get for normal purchases because it's written into your credit card agreement as a different class of transaction with different rules. I'm not sure if it's urban legend or true, but I have heard stories that suggest there were some \"\"loop holes\"\" in the earliest credit card reward plans that allowed for something like what you want. I doubt that any plan ever allowed exactly what you've written, but I've heard stories about people buying gift cards from merchants and then using the gift cards to pay their bill. This loop hole (if it ever existed) is closed now, but it would have allowed for essentially infinite generation of rewards at no cost to the cardholder. The banks and credit card companies have a lot of years of experience at this sort of thing now, so the threshold for you finding something that works and conforms with the cardholder agreement is pretty small.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "898499ec5c013cb2425c03238bfdc185", "text": "Credit card companies organize types of businesses into different categories. (They charge different types of businesses different fees.) When a business first sets up their credit card processing merchant account, they need to specify the category. Here is a list of categories that Visa uses. Grocery stores and supermarkets are category number 5411. Other types of businesses, such as the examples you provided in your question, have a different category number. American Express simply looks at the merchant category code for each of your transactions and only gives you rewards for the ones in the grocery store category. It's all automated. They likely don't have a list of every grocery store in the US, and even if they did, they would probably not provide it to the public, for proprietary reasons. If you are in doubt about whether or not a particular store is in the grocery category, you'll just have to charge it to your card and see what happens. Often, the category of transaction will be shown for each transaction on your credit card's website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a4255273eee969a2c2fd7c5a4996127", "text": "Can I transfer funds from India to USA which I have borrowed in India. Funds borrowed in India may not be transferred outside of India as per Foreign Exchange Management Act. Loans in rupees to non-residents against security of shares or immovable property in India:- Subject to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time in this regard, an authorised dealer in India may grant loan to a non-resident Indian, e) the loan amount shall not be remitted outside India;", "title": "" }, { "docid": "536a9451d2d6c78952cbfd226f8e9cdc", "text": "I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cf8ce38faa7d7100545e962be1cdbc75	Malaysian real estate: How to know if the market is overheated or in a bubble?	[ { "docid": "f34b5a00e27f0cd229ddb1bd5f026e18", "text": "I am also from Malaysia and I just purchase a property around Klang Valley area. Property market is just like share market. You will never know when is the highest peak point and when is the lowest peak point. Yes. Not only you, but everyone of us. What I would say that, just buy according to your need and your financial status. If you feel that you need a comfortable place to stay rather than renting a room, and buying that property will not burden your financial status too much, why not go for it? The best time to purchase property is perhaps last year when world economic is down turn. But thing is over and can never go back. Since all of us don't have a crystal ball to tell the future, why not just act according to your heart and common sense (Buy according to need) ;)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2e7abc621b9eba9919bdc8626302fdf", "text": "The Motley Fool suggested a good rule of thumb in one of their articles that may be able to help you determine if the market is overheating. Determine the entire cost of rent for a piece of property. So if rent is $300/month, total cost over a year is $3600. Compare that to the cost of buying a similar piece of property by dividing the property price by the rent per year. So if a similar property is $90,000, the ratio would be $90,000/$3600 = 25. If the ratio is < 20, you should consider buying a place. If its > 20, there's a good chance that the market is overheated. This method is clearly not foolproof, but it helps quantify the irrationality of some individuals who think that buying a place is always better than renting. P.S. if anyone can find this article for me I'd greatly appreciate it, I've tried to use my google-fu with googling terms with site:fool.com but haven't found the article I remember.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b508fb29a4818644b1c9cfa3b62c60", "text": "FYI...during the housing boom here in the US many people spoke about ever increasing home prices. Many thought home prices could never go down. Until they did. If it seems like it is impossible for home prices to continue to go up then they probably will stop going up at some point, although the rising prices can continue for a lot longer than you think possible. I'm wondering if Malaysia is feeling the effects of the US FED which flooded the market with US dollars after the crisis. The Malaysian central bank holds US dollars as its foreign exchange reserves. In order to keep the ringgit from rising against the dollar the Malaysian central bank will print up ringgit to purchase dollars which suppresses the value of the ringgit. This has the effect of artificially lowering interest rates as ringgits become readily available leading to a boom - the boom being in real estate. Just a hunch. Is the dinar in Kelantan getting much attention in Malaysia? This is starting to make a little news here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd57f1ea690f9124b3ee57d50629d863", "text": "\"I don't buy the \"\"house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials\"\" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36444964e7e32ac1e5389b0eb8b3947a", "text": "I think the only sure way to know if there is a bubble is to wait till it bursts and buy then. If it would be easy to tell there wouldn't be any bubbles.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e44e5d398d5efd28d6c1262b52e48099", "text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices do always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even repay your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f827721412df38aabe25fe0136f47c0", "text": "\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"\"Xi'an, China\"\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfaeffe85aafea3a5e7818563474d004", "text": "Since 2008, when it all came crashing down, I read a variety of solid data sources that said this asset bubble and mortgage/HELOCs were going to reset (blow up) in slow motion for years, maybe decades. Nothing changed from that time. This has been happening for hundreds of years from what I understand now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c884273604897d7a6e5ab13bcf786204", "text": "Long story short, we are currently in a set of asset and credit bubbles across many financial asset categories, driven by the tremendous amount of liquidity created by central banks with 0 interest rates and quantitative easing since 2008. The bitcoin bubble is pure financial speculation, a price increase in the thousands of percents is unsustainable. And the stock bubbles are enormous and exist across all major US indices, and indices abroad like the Nikkei 225.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2e9f2153e4460445c24cf7830f14c08", "text": "No, it is not true. It depends on the market, the banks' inventory, the original debt that was owed, etc etc. The banks generally want to recover their money, so in case of underwater properties they may end up hold a property for years until prices bounce back (as it happened during the last crisis when many houses were boarded for months/years until banks put them back on the market hoping to sell at a price that would allow them to recover their losses).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9ad978a1f32063c9927ea2c129c901a", "text": "The behaviour described in this article was fraud and deception to work around regulations that would have kept the bubble from overinflating. If the housing bubble had stopped when they ran out of genuine loan prospects it would have been a lot less worse when it popped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a650eb54629344688feacb48f083c17d", "text": "Nah, this is a fluff piece designed to get people excited about real estate. A good rule of thumb is that if a piece has a National Association of Realtors quote in it, it's good odds that that it's trying to promote buying and/or selling real estate and trying to get people excited about real estate. If there's actually a shortage of supply relative to demand, which is what matters, I'd expect to see Case-Schiller housing price index increases (not just median sales price increases, which I see quoted a bit, as those are affected by what type of house is selling in larger numbers). Let's go back and look at [YOY Case-Schiller for Los Angeles](http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----). Yup, looks like Los Angeles has seen a 4.8% drop over the course of the last year in the index. Not exactly the sign of a booming housing market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1b63ad74f4022604a563bc575ba84b0", "text": "I think one of the problems is bubbles convince people that they aren't in a bubble. Happens over and over and over. People standing back and saying, you know this might be a bubble get ignored most of the time right until it is too late. There have been bubbles for a loong time and in so many things it seems silly that people don't spot them near immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70f7ff51ab5fbb6c5c09eb6c69e86b50", "text": "Don't over analyze it - check with some local landlords that are willing to share some information and resources Then analyze the Worst Case Scenarios and the likelihood of them happening and if you could deal with it if it did happen Then Dive In - Real Estate is a long term investment so you have plenty of time to learn everything..... Most people fail.... because they fail to take the first leap of faith !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03c46913c88acb07ad9733f13da16f75", "text": "Boom-bust economic cycles and asset bubbles have been happening for hundreds of years. And they take years or decades to work out, eg Long Depression from 1870-1890. Nothing is different this time. Therefore I am surprised people think the housing recovery is right around the corner. I don't think the conditions exist for the type of housing recovery people expect. Asset bubble, high unemployment, low wages and aging work force = economic stagnation. Maybe for the rest of my working life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfb944e86b2ca099cf89eb4ffc4b2db7", "text": "\"Canadian bubble is in a weird place. The problem with the market is it doesn't take into account the increase in quality. I lived in one of the frothiest places on the north side of Toronto. When I first moved their the same bungalow that sold for $1mm + was about 400-450k. What they don't mention in those articles is that there is a fair amount of LAND, and that the new owners will tear it down the day they take possession, and build a really large home on it. That is why you see single dethatched homes in Toronto outpacing condos by a huge margin. (or one reason anyway. we have our green belt/intensification issues, and in Vancouver, they have natural intensification issues thanks to the mountains and the ocean.) All that said, I was pretty sure I had bought at the height recently, but lo and behold prices continued to rise. I think the only thing that will \"\"save\"\" us is the insured mortgages. I mean there will be write offs, but not like what we saw in the US, as Canadian banks/and FIs are much more conservative. I think China is the wild card in the Canadian RE market, at least on the condo side. We don't have any good statistics about how many investors are off Canadian soil.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac7828370d866a6e91c3a456e08d6155", "text": "So after you learn some basics about bubbles you might then see that interest rates kept at their lowest since the days they were backed with gold may allow a bubble to form in housing. You know the bond purchases increased real estate prices right? What is it about the magic $2 Trillion that makes you think the FED hit the spot right on?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9736dc511d3b562f2279b7227c40a95", "text": "There's probably no simple answer, but it's fair to say there are bad times to buy, and better times. If you look at a house and see the rent is more than the mortgage payment, it may be time to consider buying. Right now, the market is depressed, if you buy and plan to stay put, not caring if it drops from here because you plan to be there for the long term, you may find a great deal to be had. Over the long term, housing matches inflation. Sounds crazy, but. Even into the bubble, if you looked at housing in terms of mortgage payment at the prevailing 30yr fixed rate and converted the payment to hours needed to work to make the payment, the 2005 bubble never was. Not at the median, anyway. At today's <5% rate, the mortgage will cost you 3.75% after taxes. And assuming a 3% long term inflation rate, less than 1%. You have expenses, to be sure, property tax, maintenance, etc, but if you fix the mortgage, inflation will eat away at it, and ultimately it's over. At retirement, I'll take a paid for house over rising rents any day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729", "text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9", "text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
86ed7fcc2e9b3102f5c3e5675e30fae0	Negatives to increased credit card spending limit? [duplicate]	[ { "docid": "02438e9bb394de18945773d7b7842e30", "text": "The only drawback is if you spend more than you can with the new limit and end up having to pay interest if you can't pay the balance in full. Other than that, there are no drawbacks to getting a credit increase. On the flip side, it's actually good for you. It shows that the banks trust you with more credit, and it also decreases your credit utilization ratio (assuming you spend the same).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ac0a14ae3c068850a23e474e5795d7a", "text": "There is another drawback, and this is why I keep a low-limit card for online purchases and another for carrying in risky/unfamiliar situations (e.g. travelling) a small limit acts as as damage limitation in the event of theft. In theory you may not be liable if your card is stolen and used. In practice you may be out of pocket for a considerable amount of time, and trying to spend large sums on an overlimit card will soon trip it up (especially if those large sums are out of the ordinary)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8a2434e4e41ba2a70e1dd06ac106b53", "text": "The one big drawback I know is when you take the mortgage credit, your credit ability is calculated, and from that sum all of your credits are subtracted, and credit limit on credit card counts as credit... I don't know if it is worldwide praxis, but at least it is the case in Poland.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d961e641ce8db03c4e7d97f1aca6034", "text": "\"https://money.stackexchange.com/a/79252/41349 https://money.stackexchange.com/a/79261/41349 Adding to @Chris H answer about damage limitation Online purchases could include phone/tablet app purchases, which could be an issue if you have children or you are a victim of fraud. First link from googling \"\"Kid racks up almost $6,000 on Jurassic World in-app purchases\"\" Adding to @Michael C. Answer I think credit cards perhaps can make it more difficult to budget, if you are more lazy/have limited savings. These might happen more long term if you don't keep track of your spending. I.e. If your credit limit matches your monthly income, and if you pay off your card each month, I think it is harder to overspend as you don't have more credit available than you can afford to spend. However this is countered by that, a slightly higher credit limit may help to avoid fees from exceeding your credit card limit. I think due to that some/not all purchases are instantly \"\"banked\"\", i.e. the shop might send all of its monies to its bank at the end of the day or something like this, so you can just keep spending not realising you have exceeding your credit limit and get hit by fees.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ada9b365d608336a462040cce275f6ab", "text": "The old underwriting standards were 28% home debt to income ratio and 33% consumer debt to income ratio. Consumer debt is calculated based on minimum payments. Now, most models are revised upwards... I believe 33/38 is more common today. As long as you are current on the accounts, closing credit or store revolving accounts will have little or no bearing. Just leave them dormant... there is no positive result from closing accounts that have no balance. Having low or no balances has NO negative impact on your credit score. Low balances are NOT red flags to lenders. Period. Here's a quote from Fair Issac: It's just not true that you can have too much available credit. That by itself is never a negative with the score. Sometimes the things you do to get too much can be a problem, such as opening a bunch of new accounts, but for the most part, that's just kind of an old wives' tale. The major drivers of credit scoring are: To improve your prospects for getting a mortgage, you should be reducing your spending and focusing 60/40 on saving for a down payment and paying down that $15k credit card, respectively. Having cash for a down payment is critical to your buying power, as zero-down loans aren't widely available in 2011, and a large downpayment will allow you to eliminate or reduce the time you are paying PMI. PMI reduces your buying power, and is a big waste of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3654c49e93418a601245e84ca431ad22", "text": "How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score? might answer your question if US based. In the US, what counts is what shows on the bill. I've run $20K through a card with a $10K limit, but still ended the month under $2K by making extra payments. As long as you stay ahead of the limit by making mid-cycle payments, I see no issue with this strategy. If you keep running $30K/mo through a card with a $10K limit, the bank will eventually catch this and raise your limit as you will have proven you are more credit worthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a495a945460a40e2af146c24b9cb52f", "text": "Credit scoring has changed since the time of this question (July 2017) and it is now possible that having a high available credit balance can negatively affect your credit score. ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d87c699d1503768a304fa752a29f7e3", "text": "Your score is real-time, updating every time new data hits the reporting agencies. Dilip is correct, go over 20%, and it will hit the report, but then the score returns to normal after the next bill shows a sub-20% utilization. Say your average spending is $1000, but your limit is $5000. There's no harm in asking for a small increase in the limit, or simply pay a bit toward the bill before the statement is cut. The bill and reported balance will be lower and your score, unaffected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61485d3efeea291b92489c0fa68a02c2", "text": "I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17e6cb39363323512e4c56d5b0e5e694", "text": "Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fad9d64626f90023c966ca639615a523", "text": "Every reward program has to have a funding source. If the card gives you x percent back on all purchases. That means that their business is structured to entice you to pump more transactions through the system. Either their other costs are lower, or the increased business allows them to make more money off of late fees, and interest. If the card has you earn extra points for buying a type of item or from a type of store (home stores improvement in the Spring), they are trying to make sure you use their card for what can be a significant amount of business during a small window of time. Sometimes they cap it by saying 5% cash back at home improvement stores during the spring but only on the first $1500 of purchases. That limits it to $75 maximum. Adding more business for them, makes more money for them. Groceries and gas are a good year round purchase categories. Yes there is some variation depending on the season, and the weather, but overall there is not an annual cliff once the season ends. Gas and groceries account for thousands of dollars a year these are not insignificant categories, for many families are recession proof. If they perceive a value from this type of offer they will change their buying behavior. My local grocery store has a deal with a specific gas station. This means that they made a monetary deal. Because you earn points at the grocery store and spend points at the gas station, the grocery store is paying some compensation to the gas station every time you use points. The gas station must be seeing an increase in business so theoretically they don't get 100% compensation from the grocery store. In cases where credit cards give airline miles, the credit card company buys the miles from the airline at a discount because they know that a significant number of miles will never be used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e82dc8fadcfa9887733a3d37adfb011", "text": "Incredible article, tons of data. Thank you! It does answer the above posters question if you're willing to read through. It provides data with and without 'revolving debt'. Side note; interesting to see how age and income trend. Debt increasing during the family-middle aged years, and during the peak income earning years. I'd say you want these credit card debt lower overall and on average; but with the distribution it may be sustainable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6d386b73dc66d3d6398075753f99043", "text": "Personally the main disadvantages are perpetuation of the credit referencing system, which is massively abused and woefully under regulated, and encouraging people to think that it's ok to buy things you don't have the money to buy (either save up or question price/necessity).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6734fb004cec0b47e1fe3632aba0ffa", "text": "Unless a study accounts for whether the users are following a budget or not, it is irrelevant to those who are trying to take their personal finances seriously. I can certainly believe that those who have no budget will spend more on a credit card than they will on a debit card or with cash. Under the right circumstances spending with cards can actually be a tool to track and reduce spending. If you can see on a monthly and yearly basis where all of your money was spent, you have the information to make decisions about the small expenses that add up as well as the obvious large expenses. Debit cards and credit cards offer the same advantage of giving you an electronic record of all of your transactions, but debit cards do not come with the same fraud protection that credit cards have, so I (and many people like me) prefer to use credit cards for security reasons alone. Cash back and other rewards points bolster the case for credit cards over debit cards. It is very possible to track all of your spending with cash, but it is also more work. The frustration of accounting for bad transcriptions and rechecking every transaction multiple times is worth discussing too (as a reason that people get discouraged and give up on budgeting). My point is simply that credit cards and the electronic records that they generate can greatly simplify the process of tracking your spending. I doubt any study out there accounts for the people who are specifically using those benefits and what effect it has on their spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6989fe08953b803f5a250654774b1f23", "text": "It is an issue of both utilization and average age of accounts. If your cards with $0 balances on them are: A) newer cards than the ones you are carrying balances on and you don't want them B) much lower limit cards than the ones you are carrying balances on then you can raise your score by closing them, as the utilization change won't be a large factor and you can raise the average age of your open accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bfbeea865a7de3a370c39b733d0c35e", "text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2725a626169f8bb0452fe6787d91dd", "text": "The credit limit is not going to be the problem; the daily spending limit is more likely be tripped first. I'm not a lawyer but if you are not responsible for the credit card details being leaked it is very unlikely that the bank will be able to charge you for fraudulent spending on the card. The important thing is to notify the bank as soon as possible once you realize there is a problem and if practical keep evidence of that notification, it will then be the banks problem to fix. From my understanding Singapore has relatively good consumer protection and it is unlikely the bank will get very far even if they try to charge you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "870aab5ad61853f1b6b2527b6be59621", "text": "\"Others have commented on the various studies. If, as JoeTaxpayer says, this one particular study he mentions does not really exist, there are plenty of others. (And in that case: Did someone blatantly lie to prove a bogus point? Or did someone just get the name of the organization that did the study wrong, like it was really somebody called \"\"B&D\"\", they read it as \"\"D&B\"\" because they'd heard of Dun & Bradstreet but not of whoever B&D is. Of course if they got the organization wrong maybe they got important details of the study wrong. Whatever.) But let me add one logical point that I think is irrefutable: If you always buy with cash, there is no way that you can spend more than you have. When you run out of cash, you have no choice but to stop spending. But when you buy with a credit card, you can easily spend more than you have money in the bank to pay. Even if it is true that most credit card users are responsible, there will always be some who are not, and credit cards make it easy to get in trouble. I speak from experience. I once learned that my wife had run up $20,000 in credit card debt without my knowledge. When she divorced me, I got stuck with the credit card debt. To this day I have no idea what she spent the money on. And I've known several people over the years who have gone bankrupt with credit card debt. Even if you're responsible, it's easy to lose track with credit cards. If you use cash, when you take out your wallet to buy something you can quickly see whether there's a lot of money left or not so much. With credit, you can forget that you made the big purchase. More likely, you can fail to add up the modest purchases. It's easy to say, \"\"Oh, that's just $100, I can cover that.\"\" But then there's $100 here and $100 there and it can add up. (Or depending on your income level, maybe it's $10 here and $10 there and it's out of hand, or maybe it's $10,000.) It's easier today when you can go on-line and check the balance on your credit card. But even at that, well just this past month when I got one bill I was surprised at how big it was. I went through the items and they were all legitimate, they just ... added up. Don't cry for me, I could afford it. But I had failed to pay attention to what I was spending and I let things get a little out of hand. I'm a pretty responsible person and I don't do that often. I can easily imagine someone paying less attention and getting into serious trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2eac5e82a4c0a19adf1606429e902086", "text": "From my 2003 Colorado experience here: Earnest money shows that your offer is legit and is held until escrow as you recall correctly. I assumed you meant escrow money, because I cannot think of any other non-refundable deposit you'd put on a home. Perhaps for a new home or a manufactured home?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
423e17762d7f9ea1d6821e521031091b	What happens to the original funds when a certified bank check is not cashed?	[ { "docid": "7a1e6c5dee1dc728561808bbff5abb42", "text": "\"The answer probably varies with local law, and you haven't said where you're located. In most or all US states, it appears that after some statutory length of time, the bank would transfer the money to the state government, where it would be held indefinitely as \"\"unclaimed property\"\" in the name of the recipient (technically, the payee, the person to whom the check is made payable). This process is called escheatment. Most states publish a list of all unclaimed property, so at some later date the payee could find their name on this list, and realize they were entitled to the funds. There would then be a process by which the payee could claim the funds from the state. Usually the state keeps any interest earned on the money. As far as I know, there typically wouldn't be any way for you, the person who originated the payment, to collect the money after escheatment. (Before escheatment, if you have the uncashed check in your possession, you can usually return it to the bank and have it refunded to you.) I had trouble finding an authoritative source explaining this, but a number of informal sources (found by Googling \"\"cashier check escheatment\"\") seem to agree that this is generally how it works. Here is the web site for a law firm, saying that in California an uncashed cashier's check escheats to the state after 3 years. Until escheatment occurs, the recipient can cash the check at any time. I don't think that cashier's checks become \"\"stale\"\" like personal checks do, and there isn't any situation in which the funds would automatically revert to you.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b", "text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cdfd8f57e33ad426093156585bcec6f", "text": "\"Generally cashiers checks do not expire, since they are \"\"like cash\"\" and fully funded at the time of issue. However, whether they can be cashed after a long period of time (and also what the definition of \"\"long\"\" is) depends on the bank. Eventually, if left uncashed it probably would be escheated to the state to wait for someone to claim it. Being that it's been less than a year I expect it could be cashed by the payee written on the check without any issues. If the payee is deceased then the check can be cashed by the estate, as it should be considered the property of the estate the same way it would be if it had already been cashed and was now sitting in a bank account in your mother's name. Under normal circumstances the \"\"estate\"\" in this case would go to your mother's spouse first, then to you (and your siblings if you have any), unless there is a will specifying otherwise. The only way your aunt would be able to deposit the check on her own is if she was listed as an \"\"OR\"\" on the check, or if she is the executor of OP's mother's estate. It sounds like the second line of the check is indeed referring to your aunt, however, from your description of the check it sounds like the second line is simply a designation of what the check is for rather than an additional payee. I bet a probate attorney in your state could easily tell by simply looking at the check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026", "text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af46855a091ee52405c711ca88a06b3f", "text": "\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \"\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\"\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46275c177deeb601b7d56a1afda66b34", "text": "\"This is based on my experience with Chase and may not be applicable to other banks. As you mentioned Chase as one of the banks you do business with hopefully this will be helpful to you. The money does come out of your account immediately. If the check isn't cashed in a certain amount of time, the check expires and you get the money credited back to your account. Once you have made a bill payment online you can check on the status of your check by looking at your payment activity, finding the payment in question, and following the \"\"proof of payment\"\" link. There is will provide you with information on your payment which you can submit to your payee to prove when you submitted the payment, and which they can use to verify with the bank that you really did send the payment as you claimed. Once the check is cashed, this page will also contain images of the front and back of the cashed check, so you can prove that the recipient really did cash it. You can see from this info that the check is being funded from a different account number than your own, which is good for security purposes since (per Knuth, 2008) giving someone else your bank routing number and account number as found on your personal checks basically provides them with all they need to (fraudulently, of course) clean out your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "108d9a48519cbc0607154a347f41e35b", "text": "\"To answer length validity and security implications of draft checks issued and negotiated within the United States, I am heavily addressing the common erroneous assumptions of where the funds sit while they're \"\"in\"\" a draft check and how to get them out. Tl;Dr The existing answers are incomplete and in some ways dangerously misleading. Jerry can still be potentially defrauded by Tom, and even if the check is legitimately drawn and negotiable, Jerry may still experience delayed access to the funds. The funds sit in an account held by the issuing bank. As long as the bank has sufficient funds, the check does. However, there are significantly more factors that go into whether a check will be returned unpaid (\"\"bounce\"\"). If I hand you $5000 in cash, will you give me $5000 in cash? Probably, and you'd probably be pretty safe. How about I give you a $5000 draft check, will you give me $5000 in cash without doing anything except looking at it to verify the check? I hope not (Cash America sure wouldn't) but people sell expensive goods with the \"\"same as cash\"\" attitude. Remember: The only non-cash form of payment which cannot somehow be held, reversed or returned unpaid in the U.S. without consent of the receiving party is a payment order (a.k.a wire transfer)! The draft check is \"\"as good as cash\"\" in the sense that the money for a draft check is withdrawn from your account before the check is negotiated (deposited). This does NOT mean that a draft check will not bounce, so Jerry is NOT as secure in handing the goods to Tom as if Tom had handed him cash, as it is still a check. Jerry's bank will not receive the funds for Tom's draft check for an average 3 to 5 business days, same as a personal check. Jerry will probably have access to the first $5000 within two business days... provided that he deposits the draft check in person at his bank's branch or in a bank-owned ATM. In the United States, Regulation CC governs funds availability. Regarding official, draft, or tellers checks: \"\"If the customer desires next-day availability of funds from these checks, [your bank] may require use of a special deposit slip.\"\" Mobile deposit availability in the U.S. is NOT regulated in this way and will likely be subject to a longer hold on more, if not all, of the check! Draft checks, don't, as a habit, \"\"bounce\"\" in the colloquial sense of \"\"returned for insufficient funds.\"\" This is because they are prepaid and drawn upon a financial institution's account. Banks are insolvent far less frequently than other businesses or individuals. Draft checks, tellers checks, official checks, bank checks, etc CAN, however, be returned unpaid if one of the following is true: As an aside: an institution is not obligated to honor a stale dated check, but may do so at its discretion. If you have a personal check outstanding for over 6 months, it may still clear and potentially overdraw your account. In this case, contact your bank ASAP to process a reversal. The depositing bank mis-scans the check and the issuing bank refuses the resulting data. I have seen systems mis-read which data field is which, or its contents. Also, there is the possibility the image if the check will be illegible to the issuing bank. The draft check has been cancelled (stop paid). This can happen if: a) The check was fraudulently bought from the issuing bank using Tom's account b) Tom has completed an indemnification agreement that the check was lost or otherwise not used for its intended purpose, without fraud having occurred against Tom c) The draft check is escheated (paid to the state as unclaimed property). This case is a subset of case 1, but will lead to a different return reason stamped on the (image replacement document of) the check. The draft check was never any good in the first place. Because of the perception that draft checks are as good as cash (they're not but are a lot better than personal checks), forgery and attempted fraud is shockingly common. These aren't actually underwritten by a real bank, even if they appear to be. The only money \"\"in\"\" them is what the fraudster can get out of you. Jerry did not properly endorse the check before presenting it for deposit or otherwise negotiating it. In my time in banking, I most commonly saw cases 3 and 4. Unlike most counterfeit cash, case 3 will fool Jerry and Jerry's teller. Tom gets an immediate payout (a car, a wire transfer, a payday loan, etc) and Jerry's bank doesn't know the check isn't valid until they call the alleged issuing bank to verify its negotiability, or in the case of smaller checks into lower-risk accounts, it is simply returned unpaid as fraudulently drawn. To conclude: Call the alleged issuing bank's verification line before handing over the goods, always properly endorse your deposits, and address what happens if one does not receive or collect on prompt payment in your contracts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b4f9983beb904b0b744eca383c05e04", "text": "The two banks involved may have different policies about honoring the check. It might not be written on the check. Your bank may decide that the stale check has to be treated differently and will withhold funds for a longer period of time before giving you access to the money. They will give time for the first bank to refuse to honor the check. They may be concerned about insufficient funds, the age of the check, and the fact that the original account could have been closed. If you are concerned about the age of the check. You could go to your bank in person, instead of using deposit by ATM, scanner, or smart phone. This allows you to talk to a knowledgeable person. And if they are going to treat the check differently or reject the check, they can let you know right away. The audit may not have been concerned about the fact that the check hadn't been cashed because when they did the audit the check was still considered fresh. Some companies will contact you eventually to reissue the check so you they can get the liability off their books. If the bank does refuse the check contact the company to see how you can get a replacement check issued. They may want proof the check can't be cashed so they don't have to worry about paying you twice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "254b29225b915be822ea4a883a43a442", "text": "\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6eb4b993d7246ad579a556fba2f029a", "text": "This is a reasonable requirement which many banks probably have. The reason is that after you deposit a check, ACH or direct deposit - they may be reversed after a couple of days (check bounced, payment canceled, etc). If you wire the money out, and then the check by which you got the money gets bounced - the bank is left hanging because money wired out is very hard to return. Wire transfers are generally irreversible unless its a mistake in the wire. After 10 days, these transactions cannot be reversed and the money is bound to remain on the account, so you can wire it out. By the way, it also goes for cashier's checks as well, I had a similar discussion with my banker (don't remember if it was WF or Chase) when I needed one based on a ACH transfer from my savings account elsewhere. They gave me the check, but said that its because I proved that the transfer was from my own account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "804a18fc851121a3975fb36daad078b8", "text": "A bank check is drawn on the bank itself. You gave the bank the funds backing that check at the time you purchased it. You can not get that money back except by returning the check to them. So, yes, effectively that check behaves like cash; the money us already gone from your account, and once you hand it over you can't claim it was forged or otherwise try to cancel the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9fb9a566fba1ecb9104bd4270b8e34a", "text": "If you can get to a physical branch, get a cashier's check (or call them and have them send you one by mail). When they draft the cashier's check they remove the money from your account immediately and the check is drawn against the bank itself. You could hold onto that check for a little while even after your account closes and you make other arrangements for banking. If you cannot get a cashier's check, then you should try to expeditiously open a new account and do an ACH from old to new. This might take more days to set up than you have left though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bb78deeb91af610c9616f3121904d4e", "text": "\"First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the \"\"I'll walk\"\" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab4e544caa7e8c7379f2f5832b9df854", "text": "\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b", "text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71ed1b2994f1a649819658218a90521c", "text": "First, gather the information you have on her banking history. She may have accounted for that money and moved it to a new account or otherwise spent it. I don't expect you'll have much banking documentation from the 1950s, but if you do, then start there and trace the money. To the extent you can, you may try to contact the banks in question or their successors. It may be difficult to trace them through mergers or closings. Again, it's very possible that she spent or transferred those funds and there is nothing to find anyway. There is also a risk that if the money went unclaimed for too long, then the bank was obligated to escheat any remaining balance to the state of Ohio. You can try contacting Ohio Department of Commerce about unclaimed funds and attempt to locate anything that may have rightly belonged to her. You will need to gather documentation to do so. You may be able to receive the funds from the state, if it has received them.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8d039d928b60090fcdb652e1ba82bb17	If I want to take cash from Portugal to the USA, should I exchange my money before leaving or after arriving?	[ { "docid": "ac45f2f3493e3a94831f9570e181d4c0", "text": "in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef274fde8ff9993d7e6a2b343d34d339", "text": "\"You can find lots of answers to this question by googling. I found at least five pages about this in 30 seconds. Most of these pages seem to say that if you must convert cash, converting it in the destination country is probably better, because you are essentially buying a product (in this case, dollars), and it will cheaper where the supply is greater. There are more dollars in the USA than there are in Portugal, so you may be able to get them cheaper there. (Some of those pages mention caveats if you're trying to exchange some little-known currency, which people might not accept, but this isn't an issue if you're converting euros.) Some of those pages specifically recommend against airport currency exchanges; since they have a \"\"captive audience\"\" of people who want to convert money right away, they face less competition and may offer worse rates. Of course, the downside of doing the exchange in the USA is that you'll be less familiar with where to do it. I did find some people saying that, for this reason, it's better to do it in your own country where you can shop around at leisure to find the best rate. That said, if you take your time shopping around, shifts in the underlying exchange rate in the interim could erase any savings you find. It's worth noting, though, that the main message from all these pages is the same: don't exchange cash at all if you can possibly avoid it. Use a credit card or ATM card to do the exchange. The exchange rate is usually better, and you also avoid the risks associated with carrying cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "397db742bda6c868bf076dce710d52be", "text": "My experience (from European countries, but not Portugal specifically) is that it's better to change in the European country, as many banks will give you US $ as a matter of course, while in the US (insular place that it is), it can be rather difficult to find a place to exchange money outside an international airport. In fact, I have a few hundred Euros left from my last trip, several years ago. Expected to make another trip which didn't come off, and haven't found a place to exchange them. PS: Just for information's sake, at the time I was working in Europe, and found that by far the easiest way to transfer part of my salary back home was to get $100 bills from my European bank. Another way was to withdraw money from an ATM, as the US & European banks were on the same network. Unfortunately the IRS put a stop to that, though I don't know if it was all banks, or just the particular one I was using. Might be worth checking, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2aadd8b941dcefd97754d89abc722d6", "text": "I would just rely on the salary from my job in the US. If you don't have a job in the US, you're very unlikely to get a visa to move there and look for work, and so the question of how to take money there (except for a holiday) doesn't arise. (Unless you have dual Portuguese/American citizenship.)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6af61f5dd721d751f9540dbf2bfab952", "text": "You can open a NRE account or a NRO account online before you leave the US and transfer the bulk of your money into it. After returning to India, your tax status will be RNOR (Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident) and you can keep the NRE and NRO accounts for several years (three?) and can do whatever you like with the money in them: transfer the money to ordinary (resident) savings accounts, or reconvert back to US dollars for payment of any outstanding bills (e.g. credit card bills) or US taxes for 2017 etc. Don't forget to close your US bank account before you leave. Many banks allow opening of NRE and NRO accounts on-line, though some paperwork needs to be sent in (e.g. copies of passport pages, signature cards etc). In most cases, one month is more than enough time to complete these formalities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531", "text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba62c505f4d6f363fe60f7ca52e607cf", "text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce", "text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5317a819de3c515bffdc09816c4468cc", "text": "You should definitely be able to keep the US bank account and credit cards. I'm a UK citizen and resident who worked in the US for a few months (on a temporary visa) many years back and I still have the US bank account from that time. Unless you are planning on moving to the UK permanently, you also should keep your US bank account and cards to make the process of moving back there eventually easier. I would also suggest keeping/moving at least a portion of your savings to the US at regular intervals to insure you against the risk that exchange rates will be against you when you move back. It'll also make things easier when you visit the US as you presumably will every so often - if you use your US account and cards you won't get hit so badly by charges for making each individual payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd0807d14ae67ad37d5284c750633bce", "text": "Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d9579caffe876adaaec0604f08c7549", "text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "680b056ab2e54bd4a50b6fa72c91b424", "text": "Option 3 is a pretty unique offering. Nationwide offer free withdrawals abroad, but you need to pay £10 per month (you do get very good travel insurance and other services for that fee too). So I like option 3, good for the average tourist, then pay a nominal % as expected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "017b585703b7e141a871ab54e579c57b", "text": "\"If you are going to keep your US bank account for any period of time, the very best option I know of is to withdraw Euros from an atm using your US card once you are in Germany. I draw on my US account regularly (I'm in Munich) and always get the going \"\"mid market\"\" exchange rate, which is better than what you get from a currency conversion service, transfer agency, or bank transfer, and there are no fees from the atm or my bank for the currency conversion or withdrawal. Of course you should check with your bank to verify their rules and fees for atm use internationally. It would also be wise to put a travel advisory on your account to be sure your transaction is not denied because you are out of country.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d81ccba684d73402c54dbdbd18286fb3", "text": "Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551209fba299aa15ed4dd94754ca16ad", "text": "Use prepaid cards. You only have to declare, or mention, or convert CASH. You can get as many $500 prepaid cards as you like and carry them across. US Code only mentions cash, so even if customs thought it was peculiar that you had one thousand prepaid cards in your trunk, it isn't something they look into. Prepaid cards come with small transaction fees though. And of course, you could also use a bank account in America and just withdraw from an ATM in canada. Finally, the FBAR isn't that much of a hassle, in case you did decide to get a canadian bank account. The US Federal Gov't doesn't care about all these crafty things you might do, as long as you are using POST-TAX money. If your foreign account earns interest, then you have some pre-tax money that the US Federal Gov't will care about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31fa6913dcce1b5d529f2d45eb778025", "text": "What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to? As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "559926fa2f62e66aaf0c0144d3b5aabb", "text": "Find a good commercial bank in the us, or almost any bank in Canada, and exchange cash. Or use an ATM card in Canada; the surcharge is often minimal. (Check with your bank before traveling). You may or may not get a good exchange rate from your hotel desk; some view it as a courtesy, others as a service. You may be able to simply pay with American cash, near the border, but check the exchange rate. Or, for small amounts, you can simply not worry about whether you're getting the best possible exchange rate or not. I visit Canada periodically, and I use a mix of these solutions. Including that last one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9751acb6e9a16304e1187f41bf68f52", "text": "If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bf1ccb3a0c6f953f91915081ad0c0f19	As a parent of a high school student, what should my short-term cash policy be to optimize my college costs?	[ { "docid": "0b418207b6cf9316c2b7b5d6ebf0b31c", "text": "\"There is no simple answer to your question. It depends on many things, perhaps most notably what college your daughter ends up going to and what kind of aid you hope to receive. Your daughter will probably fill out the FAFSA as part of her financial aid application. Here is one discussion of what parental assets \"\"count\"\" towards the Expected Family Contribution on the FAFSA. You can find many similar pages by googling. Retirement accounts and primary residence are notable categories that do not count. So, if you were looking to reduce your \"\"apparent\"\" assets for aid purposes, dumping money into your mortgage or retirement account is a possibility. However, you should be cautious when doing this type of gaming, because it's not always clear exactly how it will affect financial aid. For one thing, \"\"financial aid\"\" includes both grants and loans. Everyone wants grants, but sometimes increasing your \"\"eligibility\"\" may just make you (or your daughter) eligible for larger loans, which may not be so great. Also, each college has its own system for allocating financial aid. Individual schools may ask for more detailed information (such as the CSS Profile). So strategies for minimizing your apparent assets that work for one school may not work for others. Some elite schools with large endowments have generous aid policies that allow even families with sizable incomes to pay little or nothing (e.g., Stanford waives tuition for most families with incomes under $125,000). You should probably research the financial aid policies of schools your daughter is interested in. It can be helpful to talk to financial aid advisors at colleges, as well as high school counselors, not to mention general financial advisors if you really want to start getting technical about what assets to move around. Needless to say, it all begins with talking with your daughter about her thoughts on where to go.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bd2b50466c2fb48a74a03351450603f0", "text": "529 plans. They accumulate earnings over time and by the time your child goes to college you will be able to withdraw funds for college TAX FREE. The best part about 529s is that there are several different options you can choose from, and you aren't limited to the plans sponsored by your state, you can use whichever plan works best for you. For example, I live in South Carolina and use Utah's Educational Savings Plan because it has no minimum amount to open one up and it has low fees. Hope this helped. Good luck with your search!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5305cdb5756aaf5eb92e7db0276beb90", "text": "\"There are entire books devoted to this topic... :) I'd suggest focusing on a % of income that you can set aside for each child and start doing that instead of looking at a specific dollar target. I would look at a 529 plan to get the state tax benefit for growth. Also, be careful to counter the \"\"advice\"\" given by admissions folks, who encourage high school kids to \"\"choose the college that will make you happy\"\" and expose them to as many pictures of lovely, leafy private campuses as possible. The lawns at the private school are nice, but state colleges offer a great education at a relative bargain. Try to teach your kids about money so they understand the downsides of the loans that schools throw at you. I went to a state school, had very supportive parents and worked throughout. I came out with $750 of debt (on a 0% credit card for a laptop replacement). I have a friend who went to a similar, private school who came from a similar background and who is now in a similar place career-wise. Except he has a $500/mo monthly tribute to Sallie Mae. My parents started working on me when I was about 12, and it worked!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba4c40ef92b1b89622a3207dc14fd562", "text": "My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and 7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college. That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cba888604a29d667698bc55bcd65fb65", "text": "I didn't mean as a legal maximum, but rather how many hours they choose to work & get scheduled for. Some youth are lucky, and their parents pay their bills. I didn't have as expensive bills as you. Only cell phone, and my bus pass in high school. But I did have to pay for all of my graduation costs myself and post-secondary application fees. So keeping a savings amount really helps. (I also had 4 jobs simultaneously in high school. )", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7375b487322935638688af71c2a9a918", "text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94486c7158fe5681abe710fc46ebb6c2", "text": "There are some great answers on this site similar to what you asked, with either a non-jurisdictional or a US-centric focus. I would read those answers as well to give yourself more points of view on early investing. There are a few differences between Canada and the US from an investing perspective that you should also then consider, namely tax rules, healthcare, and education. I'll get Healthcare and Education out of the way quickly. Just note the difference in perspective in Canada of having government healthcare; putting money into health-savings plans or focusing on insurance as a workplace benefit is not a key motivating factor, but more a 'nice-to-have'. For education, it is more common in Canada for a student to either pay for school while working summer / part-time jobs, or at least taking on manageable levels of debt [because it is typically not quite as expensive as private colleges in the US]. There is still somewhat of a culture of saving for your child's education here, but it is not as much of a necessity as it may be in the US. From an investing perspective, I will quickly note some common [though not universal] general advice, before getting Canadian specific. I have blatantly stolen the meat of this section from Ben Miller's great answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing Once you have a solid financial footing, some peculiarities of Canadian investing are below. For all the tax-specific plans I'm about to mention, note that the banks do a very good job here of tricking you into believing they are complex, and that you need your hand to be held. I have gotten some criminally bad tax advice from banking reps, so at the risk of sounding prejudiced, I recommend that you learn everything you can beforehand, and only go into your bank when you already know the right answer. The 'account types' themselves just involve a few pages of paperwork to open, and the banks will often do that for free. They make up their fees in offering investment types that earn them management fees once the accounts are created. Be sure to separate the investments (stocks vs bonds etc.) vs the investment vehicles. Canada has 'Tax Free Savings Accounts', where you can contribute a certain amount of money every year, and invest in just about anything you want, from bonds to stocks to mutual funds. Any Income you earn in this account is completely tax free. You can withdraw these investments any time you want, but you can't re-contribute until January 1st of next year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in a TFSA, and they grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k in July. No tax is involved. On January 1st next year, you can re-contribute a new $6K, and also any additional amounts added to your total limit annually. TFSA's are good for short-term liquid investments. If you don't know for sure when you'll need the money, putting it in a TFSA saves you some tax, but doesn't commit you to any specific plan of action. Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program. That means you get the tax savings during the year, instead of all at once a year later on April 30th. *Note that I have attempted at all times to keep my advice current with applicable tax legislation, but I do not guarantee accuracy. Research these things yourself because I may have missed something relevant to your situation, I may be just plain wrong, and tax law may have changed since I wrote this to when you read it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a5d77aeba67dafed30a54c183028fe", "text": "Why not just hold that cash until you graduate from college? Why? Because it's a safety net - make sure you don't have any sudden expenses (medical, school bills, car bills, etc). Then after school you're going to need some cash for job moving, relocation, clothes, downpayment on apartment, utilities, etc. If all that cash is tied up into a 401 or IRA then you can't touch it and if something happens you'll be tempted to take a loan out. Ack! You'll have plenty of time since you're just starting to save for retirement. Keep this cash as a beginning emergency fund and hang on cause as soon as you get out of school things really move fast. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34023394bf31a456359b7021c120bf34", "text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16ae5b99d93ff41de4c55c4bc1eb3386", "text": "I know it isn't exactly the question you asked, but please consider your future too. 529 is the correct answer, because if you can fund a Roth, you should be funding it for your own retirement. Your retirement has much a higher priority over anybody's college fund. It is pretty great that you want to set aside cash for the niece's education, I think asking which vehicle is best for saving for education might be the wrong question. Students have many options for going to school and paying for it but retirement is pretty limited. http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/education/clarks-529-guide/nFZS/ is a good place to learn about 529s and makes good suggestions on where to get one. Do it yourself, and don't pay a broker or agent to do it for you. If your retirement is already handled, feel free to vote me down and I will delete this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396", "text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "817b4cbef6d4a8502d9a0037e7b191e9", "text": "You have to sit down with HR for the school district. The options involved with with parents working for the same employer can be handled multiple ways. Unless you are a very small district, this situation has come up before. They will tell you what they allow, and then you have to determine which one saves you the most money. Also look into how the deductibles will work with the two policies. You also need to look at options for the two policies. For example if there are different levels of dental: you may not want to cover an orthodontist on the single plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a888db3c09df5103e9e982b789695671", "text": "College= 12786 grand a quarter = 38358 grand a year. Got loans of 5640.00 and scholarships of 5976.00 so leaves me 26742.00. Family is expected to put in that amount. Family dose not make a lot. Does not live high on the hog. I want to live a dream that I know I can work for but how do I pay. BTW I got the first 2 years covered with scholarships and military benefits. Dad put in his time so I could do this. I need advice. I will apply for things. I work every summer in jobs where I do see the wealthy enjoy the sport and not the grunt work. I go to a school where the wealthy go and they get the scholarships but they honestly can afford to not. If you pay 40 plus grand for a horse you don't need the 25 grand scholarship. They are lucky I know I have to work and I will; just need more advice on how to cover the cost of the dream :):)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e23806abc4aac758bb9c06fc926f314", "text": "begin having them take community college courses while they are still in high school - this should be a better use of time than AP courses. if they continue and get an associates degree the credits should be transferrable anywhere take the associates degree to a state school and have them finish just their two years (4 semesters) at the state school. that should be an non-stressful and affordable approach that will give them a time/age-based advantage over their peers. so instead of playing with financial aid and retirement plan rules, this sort of goal can help you save, without creating inconsequential and unnecessary expectations for yourself or your family", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1db35e8bb017eb451eefdecf893b4c9d", "text": "\"The most common way to handle this in the US is with a UTMA account. UTMA is the Uniform Transfers / Gifts to Minors Act (\"\"UTMA\"\" or \"\"UGMA\"\") which is a standard model law that most states have passed for special kinds of accounts. Once you open an account, anyone can contribute. Usually parents and grandparents will contribute $13,000 or less per year to make it a tax free transfer, but you can transfer more. The account itself would just be a standard brokerage account of any sort, but the title of the account would include your son's name, the applicable law depending on your state, and the name of the custodian who would control the account until your son turned 18. When your son does turn 18, the money is his. Until then, the money is his, but you control how it's invested. I'm a huge fan of Vanguard for UTMA/UGMAs. You may prefer to diversify a bit away from one company by selling the GE shares and buying an index mutual fund so that your child's education is not jeopardized by a rogue trader bringing down General Electric sometime in the next decade...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ba2fbf8bc4ade401666b89c7123cbf", "text": "\"First of all, I'm happy that the medical treatments were successful. I can't even imagine what you were going through. However, you are now faced with a not-so-uncommon reality that many households face. Here's some other options you might not have thought of: I would avoid adding more debt if at all possible. I would first focus on the the cost side. With a good income you can also squeeze every last dollar out of your budget to send them to school. I agree with your dislike of parent loans for the same reasons, plus they don't encourage cost savings and there's no asset to \"\"give back\"\" if school doesn't work out (roughly half of all students that start college don't graduate) I would also avoid borrowing more than 80% of your home's value to avoid PMI or higher loan rates. You also say that you can pay off the HELOC in 5 years - why can you do that but not cash flow the college? Also note that a second mortgage may be worse that a HELOC - the fees will be higher, and you still won't be able to borrow more that what the house is worth.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
35e1eb606a823934b9079731d890e83e	Would cross holding make market capitalization apparently more?	[ { "docid": "8731553b794274231c27787eedc05ebb", "text": "I started to work out, step by step, why this doesn't work, but the scenario is too convoluted to make that helpful. Basically, you're making mistakes in some or all of the following spots:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69997fc43a30d7d136f11e2c6cccf3ba", "text": "Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3e363c6bd754da752d1092b160f4188f", "text": "\"In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the \"\"Apple and Google and then some other companies\"\" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10b9336b224f113874eff14b7ee9590a", "text": "I don't see that this follows. Capital commitments require that one assess the ability to unwind as information changes - market frictions. Thats why private equity demands a premium. HFT is not investing - it is far closer to market making. In that regard it is a social good. What is of a concern is that they are far less supervised than a market maker. They provide liquidity the way bankers provide loans - when it is not essential. The old adage of an umbrella when it is sunny but take them back at the sign of rain. If there are requirements to commit capital and maintain orderly markets with some oversight on their ability to maintain their capital ratios, a shadow market maker, then they should get to enjoy making a spread in exchange for keeping those spreads relatively tight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa196599aea1fbefd2765f38b644ff1f", "text": "\"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance). Historically we can observe that periods of financial \"\"booms\"\" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1b1556891c640ff506cac3ad191e843", "text": "Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4b8f5d68c2f735007219a77e1cb00ca", "text": "Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00fdc8a7e86e2d30d633cd91f6f28d61", "text": "Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb4b88bcf2c456ec3675dac40b8c37c8", "text": "Is this a time of day effect by using, e.g. closing prices, in markets that close at different times? If so, you can mitigate this by looking at returns over longer periods (weekly, monthly or quarterly). If the cross-listed equities are showing consistently different returns at the exact same time, then you should be more concerned in figuring out how to trade the arbitrage rather than estimating a beta.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66e0f00ac4ddfe238ea77d6e34291c88", "text": "Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a001317e3a15d3fcbcfd36349e4e3720", "text": "\"As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?\"\" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself: What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e0a17f4cb11fdeada4c57156bbd9bc1", "text": "No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "013065f67d464e130ca06a9831fe8fca", "text": "Everything would depend on whether the calculation is being done using the company's all-time high intraday trading price or all-time high closing price. Further, I've seen calculations using non-public pricing data, such as bid-offer numbers from market makers, although this wouldn't be kosher. The likelihood is that you're seeing numbers that were calculated using different points in time. For the record, I think Apple has overtaken Microsoft's all-time highest market cap with a figure somewhere north of $700 billion (nominal). Here's an interesting article link on the subject of highest-ever valuations: comparison of highest market caps ever", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88eb0c2b6d234fab9d14c3c476390f47", "text": "I am not a structured products expert, just relaying what's in the article, but I'd imagine it includes a larger equity tranche in the structured product, thereby giving more cushion against losses to the actual debt investors in the tranches above it in the payment water fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc4e5345b999acd8d5ff16c1ae5ecfa6", "text": "Yea good points and they definitely should not be overlooked. The whole point of the EV calculation is to get the analyst to look at what the true underlying business is and what one is really paying for when buying securities in a company. Market Cap can be misleading for many reasons and get real annoyed when people say things like, I own XYZ company because its cash account is greater than its market cap....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4046514c9c1f46c97d5cbb109400ba6e", "text": "It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7240358f9b90ffabca237d44aeda4421	Buying a mortgaged house	[ { "docid": "97a18181ea7766c38540dd8c3eadfd38", "text": "Just as a renter doesn't care what the landlord's mortgage is, the buyer of a house shouldn't care what the seller paid, what the current mortgage is, or any other details of the seller's finances. Two identical houses may be worth $400K. One still has a $450K loan, the other is mortgage free. You would qualify for the same value mortgage on both houses. All you and your bank should care about is that the present mortgage is paid or forgiven by the current mortgage holder so your bank can have first lien, and you get a clean title. To answer the question clearly, yes, it's common for a house with a mortgage to be sold, mortgage paid off, and new mortgage put in place. The profit or loss of the homeowner is not your concern.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e807732a034e0d32a4c0fe25c7b8cd02", "text": "If someone owns a house that is not paid off...can someone buy it by taking another mortgage? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think the buyer would need to take another mortgage to buy it. If someone sells their home for X dollars, then the buyer needs X dollars to buy the house. How they get that money (use cash, take out a mortgage) is up to them. During the closing process, a portion of the funds generated from the sale are diverted to pay off the seller's loan and any leftover funds after closing are pocketed by the seller. What kind of offer would be most sensible? I assume that in this case the current owner of the house would want to make a profit. The amount that the house is sold for is determined by the market value of their home, not by the size of the mortgage they have left to pay off. You make the same offer whether they own their home or have a mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "941f1d51b09cabfb7caf10a37e4ae868", "text": "\"Go on a website that has real estate listings. Find similar homes in the same neighborhood and list out the prices. Once you have prices, pick out two with different prices and call the realtor of the more expensive listing. Tell that realtor about the other listing and ask why their listing is more expensive. Compare their answer to the home that you are considering buying. For example, they may say that their house has a newly remodeled kitchen. Does the house you are considering have a newly remodeled kitchen? If so, then use the higher priced listing and throw out the cheaper one. If not, use the cheap listing and throw out the expensive one. Or they might say that the expensive house is in a better location than the cheaper house. Further away from traffic. Easier to get to the highway or public transportation. If so, ask how the location compares to the house you are actually considering. The realtor will tell you if the listings are comparable. When I talk about \"\"similar homes,\"\" I mean homes that are similar in square footage, number of bedrooms, and number of bathrooms. Generally real estate sites will allow you to search by all of these as well as location. After all this, the potential seller may still turn you down. If he really wanted to sell, he'd have suggested a price. He may just be seeing if you're willing to overpay. If so, he could turn down an otherwise reasonable offer. How much he is willing to take is up to him. Note that this would all be easier if you just bought a house the normal way. Then the realtors would do the comparables portion of the work. You might be able to find a realtor or appraiser who would do the work for a set fee. Perhaps your bank would help you with that, as they have to appraise the property to offer a mortgage. You asked if you can buy out a mortgaged house with a mortgage. Yes, you can. That's a pretty normal occurrence. Normally the realtors would make all the necessary arrangements. I'm guessing that a title transfer company could handle that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdfc3e853580c00d5da19e51a2631af0", "text": "\"Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for \"\"first-time home buyer\"\" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K. Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage. It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e3114d45827cfc2ab35bae84dc5fce87", "text": "\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c4bc25e5ecf9f7dd4e2a49e2fe716ba", "text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c8b73d5026f1e9bb5aa37158a80c2bf", "text": "\"You are asking about a common, simple practice of holding the mortgage when selling a house you own outright. Typically called seller financing. Say I am 70 and wish to downsize. The money I sell my house for will likely be in the bank at today's awful rates. Now, a buyer likes my house, and has 20% down, but due to some medical bills for his deceased wife, he and his new wife are struggling to get financing. I offer to let them pay me as if I were the bank. We agree on the rate, I have a lien on the house just as a bank would, and my mortgage with them requires the usual fire, theft, vandalism insurance. When I die, my heirs will get the income, or the buyer can pay in full after I'm gone. In response to comment \"\"how do you do that? What's the paperwork?\"\" Fellow member @littleadv has often posted \"\"You need to hire a professional.\"\" Not because the top members here can't offer great, accurate advice. But because a small mistake on the part of the DIY attempt can be far more costly than the relative cost of a pro. In real estate (where I am an agent) you can skip the agent to hook up buyer/seller, but always use the pro for legal work, in this case a real estate attorney. I'd personally avoid the general family lawyer, going with the specialist here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9e31264f9315abe930f2a44710544f2", "text": "\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b016ad4e91e887d07872457741a50b2c", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "167b251597ca2ddfdfb431069e0cb380", "text": "The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so. Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders. Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure. That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff1b45edc4eca37b570b308f78dab670", "text": "\"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level \"\"paying rent\"\" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a \"\"4.16\"\" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a \"\"20\"\", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment. The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f115259938b6a581b6db96d3ef7bae0", "text": "I wondered about this problem too, so I looked into the maths and made this app :- http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ (It uses the free Wolfram computable-document format (CDF) Player.) If you try it out you can see what conditions favour renting vs buying. My own conclusion was to aim to buy a property outright upon reaching retirement age, if not sooner. Example This example compares buying a £400,000 house with renting for £1,000 a month while depositing equivalent amounts (in savings) to total the same monthly outgoings as the buyer. Mortgage rate, deposit rate, property appreciation and rent inflation can be variously specified. The example mortgage term is 20 years. As you can see the buyer and renter come out about even after the mortgage term, but the buyer comes off better after that, (having no more mortgage to pay). Of course, the rent to live in a £400,000 house would probably be more than £1,000 but this case shows an equivalence point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a86f8a46f42233c11e7ebf54dfaf9ac", "text": "Regarding the mortgage company, they will want to know where the down payment came from, and as long as you are honest about it, there is no fraud. It's possible that the mortgage company may have some reservations about the deal now that they know where the down payment came from, but that will depend on the size of the deal and other factors. If everyone involved has decent credit, and this is a fairly standard mortgage, it will probably have no impact at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235844a2d25fb6628b055a1f80b77c6c", "text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d99d9f07d98a490df01d95a11efb58aa", "text": "\"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this \"\"remortgaging\"\" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba60d9fa0ce32b27088a0dd282504573", "text": "Another factor: When you sell this house and buy the next one, the more equity you have the easier the loan process tends to be. We rolled prior equity into this house and had a downpayment over 50%--and the lender actually apologized for a technicality I had to deal with--they perfectly well knew it was a basically zero-risk loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f", "text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8fefe281a9f811bfd8f1f21c19ed49", "text": "If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1998aad62501d90096f94e435b798ef6", "text": "The advice given at this site is to get approved for a loan from your bank or credit union before visiting the dealer. That way you have one data point in hand. You know that your bank will loan w dollars at x rate for y months with a monthly payment of Z. You know what level you have to negotiate to in order to get a better deal from the dealer. The dealership you have visited has said Excludes tax, tag, registration and dealer fees. Must finance through Southeast Toyota Finance with approved credit. The first part is true. Most ads you will see exclude tax, tag, registration. Those amounts are set by the state or local government, and will be added by all dealers after the final price has been negotiated. They will be exactly the same if you make a deal with the dealer across the street. The phrase Must finance through company x is done because they want to make sure the interest and fees for the deal stay in the family. My fear is that the loan will also not be a great deal. They may have a higher rate, or longer term, or hit you with many fee and penalties if you want to pay it off early. Many dealers want to nudge you into financing with them, but the unwillingness to negotiate on price may mean that there is a short term pressure on the dealership to do more deals through Toyota finance. Of course the risk for them is that potential buyers just take their business a few miles down the road to somebody else. If they won't budge from the cash price, you probably want to pick another dealer. If the spread between the two was smaller, it is possible that the loan from your bank at the cash price might still save more money compared to the dealer loan at their quoted price. We can't tell exactly because we don't know the interest rates of the two offers. A couple of notes regarding other dealers. If you are willing to drive a little farther when buying the vehicle, you can still go to the closer dealer for warranty work. If you don't need a new car, you can sometimes find a deal on a car that is only a year or two old at a dealership that sells other types of cars. They got the used car as a trade-in.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7cd7b7b628276c48932bdc76b8626130	How a company in India can misuse my PAN number and its scanned copy that I provided as an interview candidate?	[ { "docid": "c58d8109f38a882700f6f634e64d05f6", "text": "There is a possibility of misuse. Hence it should be shared judiciously. Sharing it with large / trusted organization reduces the risk as there would be right process / controls in place. Broadly these days PAN and other details are shared for quite a few transactions, say applying for a Credit Card, Opening Bank Account, Taking a Phone connection etc. In most of the cases the application is filled out and processed by 3rd party rather than the service provider directly. Creating Fake Employee records is a possibility so is the misuse to create a fake Bank account in your name and transact in that account. Since one cannot totally avoid sharing PAN details to multiple parties... It helps to stay vigilant by monitoring the Form 26AS from the Govt website. Any large cash transactions / additional salary / or other noteworthy transactions are shown here. It would also help to monitor your CIBIL reports that show all the Credit Card and other details under your name.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2b1a2d17c700fb9dcfea6f4ef1dbb125", "text": "I work in IT for eBay/PayPal. Many, if not all, got exited today. Real quick and ninja-esque. HR is really being a dick to them too. Several have personal phone numbers that were assigned to their corporate phones, and they're being told they can't have them back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c72300fdf54c00f4809352f038c5e9c2", "text": "Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5f150b226f8513cdd9a5d35c438b49", "text": "In Finland, this happens all the time - it's all about having an official ID, they don't even ask your bank account number or the card. However, as no location was specified in the question, I guess it could be anything. The stronger the requirement for official personal id is in your country, the better odds you have with just using that. Where I live it is quite strong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5b63dc46b6e81d8bdd8fe36de934a5b", "text": "Recently, over 11 lakh PAN cards has been deactivated by the Income Tax Department to fetch out fake and duplicate PANs. The main targets are the individuals who are having multiple PAN cards and those with PAN cards issued under fake documents. Blocking fake PAN cards can help the government restrain identity theft and purchase of benami properties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb9f3dc1ca4f4824bc0dd7b8a94bc0fa", "text": "\"EDIT: TLDR I Can promise you they will lose sight again because it was never regained in the first place. They aren't the first company to do it [and it wont be the last time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ypUz1WYens) The company I work for (Office Depot) is doing this practice. We have insane goals that no one can reach, and often more daily responsibilities than an individual can finish. When anyone tries to speak up against it at any level the reply is \"\"we dont want excuses\"\" or \"\"dont be negative\"\". Completely ignoring any issues presented to them. Instead rather than problem solving those who bring issues to light are treated as having created the problem. We (the company) [got in trouble a while back for our \"\"PC Tune Up\"\"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cEfYibkHjM) because the tool didn't accurately portray the condition of a customers system. If you ran the tool it would ask \"\"do you have x or y symptoms (pop ups, slow, etc)\"\" and if you selected yes it would tell you that it found possible infection symptoms. It didn't make it clear that the scan didn't detect this. They then paired this with techs that weren't trained in any way other than selling using the tools diagnosis and unrealistic sales goals. When you couldn't reach numbers you were eventually replaced. If the store didn't reach numbers it came down on management (who would fake numbers by returning items and reselling them as service sku's). Every tech I knew complained about the awful diagnostic tool, and the unrealistic goals and what they were causing. Many of us refused to use the tool on the grounds of it being misleading and immoral, depot responded by requiring a minimum amount of logged uses of the tool per week. Depot did nothing but treat it as negativity until it was brought up in the news after a disgruntled tech let the word out. Then suddenly it's \"\"were sorry\"\" acting like they had no idea what was going on and the roll out of a new tool that simply had a remote technician give the same diagnostic. (which has since changed again). We still have the same push for sales goals and attach rate (push for office, service, and square trade sales) and zero accountability. They train no one, create goals, and act surprised when they figure out how people are meeting these goals. Nothing has actually changed in a relevant way, the same core problem still exists they've only changed the face. These issues are prevalent in the company as we have minimal payroll for staffing at all times and high expectations with poor tools across the board. I've watched many people get fired for not meeting goal expectations and many more quit. I've watched the people who could meet the goals praised only to be fired a short time later when it's found they only met the goal through cheating of some sort. Every single strategy corporate tries has still followed this same format of over promise and under deliver. They pile more on while cutting resources constantly and they still haven't learned the lesson that the result is the same every time regardless of game plan. The best part is the higher ups all switch out every 3 - 6 months it seems. I've had at least 4 District managers in the short time i've been here, multiple RVP's and LP's. Everyone comes in for 6 months then jumps ship to somewhere more stable. Meanwhile we cut costs to appear more profitable. The whole retail side of the company is a sham.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce91d9cddac8975a34b9c075c7566916", "text": "My understanding of this would be that this is for the portion of the subsidiary which they do not own. In other words they record 100% of the subsidiary on their books and then make this entry to account for the % which another company has a minority interest in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455ed166eb7e627286d56be7073dcf01", "text": "\"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply \"\"non-public material information\"\". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source. Now simply saying \"\"personal info\"\" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3f2fe213073a0ef09e9a491cd875a15", "text": "Believe it or not, what they're asking you is not as unusual as you might think. Our company sells a tremendous amount of expensive merchandise over the Internet, and whenever there's something odd or suspicious about the transaction, we may ask the customer to provide a picture of the card simply to prove they have physical possession of it. This is more reassurance to us (to the extent that's possible) that the customer isn't using a stolen card number to order stuff. It doesn't help too much, but if the charge is disputed, at least we have something to show we made reasonable efforts to verify the ownership of the card. I think it's pretty thin, but that's what my employer does.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffc1b0b15aee8e83fec14feadd9bacbe", "text": "you can get the guys in india for pennies on the dollar, but then you get what you pay for. I was told on upwork that I didn't get picked because I was too expensive, but then he went on to say that their proposals are usually garbage and wanted to pay me a little to look them over and make sure they weren't full of shit. Upwork should be called UpOffShoring. wtf?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "254d00587006ce330bc204f9ad7d9fe1", "text": "Is all data in the company equally sensitive? Does everyone in the company have equal access to this type of sensitive information that would cost a company 'billions of dollars in fines' or is your argument that any work product of any employee in the company could result in such fines? Can you provide an example of any company ever paying a fine of such magnitude? If not what is the basis for your estimation of that number? Ok I'll take the stealth edit to mean you pulled it out of your ass which I already knew.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "122983b67c2e9915ddbad19b29715ab0", "text": "Oh man. That's awful. Thank you for sharing this. Hey, I'm writing a larger piece on some of the challenges we face today, and both data overload and data legitimacy are a part of it. It would be great to have someone inside the industry to talk to about this. When I get there do you mind if I reach out to you so I can learn more?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e", "text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11b39e366f3d2845e53b28c60886fc9e", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98d5a0edcdedb758a90682458dec1cb9", "text": "The only way I've seen mezz work for more than one cycle is the hard money model. Stay away from glory assets. Maturities of a year or two max. Have the stomach and wherewithal to foreclose quickly when the borrower defaults. Keep the (C)LTV under 70, where the V is not aspirational. Unitranche is generally better because it simplifies and, therefore, expedites things. All that requires sitting on dry powder while your competitors are busy and then it will cost you relationships in your other funds/divisions when you ramp up. This is why most lenders succumb: they tie their managers' careers to the short term, which, to be fair, is much easier to measure. This also applies the broader mezz market beyond RE.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a5175837a246f96287f08b7b35ac8ea1	Please explain: What exactly is a CDS or “Credit Default Swap”?	[ { "docid": "0bd36117df316b80eab6b40eb5f3618d", "text": "\"From my understanding, a CDS is a financial product to buy protection against an event of \"\"default\"\" (default of payment). Example: if General Motors owes me money $10,000,000 (because I own GM bonds for example) and I wish to protect myself against the event of GM not repaying the money they owe me (event called \"\"credit default\"\"), I pay FinancialCompany_X (the seller of the CDS) perhaps $250,000 per year against the promise that FinancialCompany_X will pay me in case GM is not paying me. This way I protected myself against that risk. FinancialCompany_X took the risk (against money). A CDS is in fact an insurance. Except they don't call it an insurance which enabled the financial industry to avoid the regulation that applies to insurances. There is a lot of infos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f97af174e359e2c1ed1c4f934eb0ea39", "text": "\"A Credit Default Swap (CDS) is a contract between two parties. A useful analogy is insurance (but by no means exact). I pay a quarterly premium in order to insure myself against another event. In this case, it might be that I own some IBM Bonds. I am happy to own those bonds, and like the \"\"coupon\"\" that they pay me. But I am a little worried about IBM going bankrupt. So I can find someone willing to sell me a CDS. So long as I keep up my \"\"premium\"\" payments, if IBM goes into default on their bonds, I get a payout. This analogy does break down at a couple of levels. Firstly there is no requirement that I have to own the IBM bond in the first place. I can in effect then \"\"take a view\"\" on IBM going into default by purchasing a CDS without owning the underlying asset. Also in the real insurance world, there are various capital requirements that the companies have to adhere to, while CDS market, being essentially unregulated has none. So to summarize, and while The Pedia has a pretty good article, they are good both to hedge your bet (i.e. protect your actual owned asset) or as a speculative tool to take a \"\"view\"\" on the likelihood of a company to go bankrupt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "413b33cf126d1548929769802949bddd", "text": "A Credit Default Swap is a derivative, a financial contract with a value dependent upon another asset. A CDS, in essence, is exactly what it sounds like a swap upon default. The typical arrangement is that a holder of non-risk free credit enters into an arrangement with a counterparty to pay the counterparty a portion of the income received from the non-risk free credit in exchange for being able to force the counterparty to deliver risk free credit if the non-risk free credit defaults. Banks use this mechanism to reduce the risk of the loans they produce while packaging them to be resold to investors. Banks will typically buy CDSes on mortgages and corporate bonds, paying part of the income from interest payments received, to have the right to force counterparties, typically hedge funds and insurance companies, to swap national Treasuries upon the event that the mortgages or corporates default. The banks receive less income yet are able to take on more inventory to sell to investors so that more loans can be made to borrowers, households and corporations. Hedge funds typically take on more complex arrangements while insurance companies sell CDSes because they are usually overflowing with risk-free assets yet are starved for income.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2c9f2e17555cddbca29bea86b1a14fa3", "text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "deedcc2dc423b9a0461a8cefdaea6df0", "text": "Others have pointed out why one typically chooses a CD: to lock in an interest rate that's higher than most other savings accounts (at the expense of having quick access to your money). While most savings accounts have practically 0% return, there are high yield savings accounts out there with little to no strings that offer ~1% APY. I've personally not found CDs to be compelling when viewed against those, especially for something like an emergency fund where I'd rather just know it's available without having to think about penalties and such. Some people ladder CDs so that they're always no more than a month or so away from having access to some of the money, but for the return I've decided I prefer to just avoid the hassle. For 2.25%, which I haven't really seen, I might consider it, but in any case, you're better served by paying more to your loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9f40a5233ebe4f4e21a745e96e5a95", "text": "CD Laddering is a process of buying multiple CDs at longer terms to take advantage of better interest rates while still having liquidity. The benefit of a CD ladder is based on this assumption. Without higher rates for longer terms, I wouldn't ladder CDs. So, let's assume you have $10,000 to invest. And let's say you have a 12 month CD at 1% and a 24 month CD at 2% available to purchase. You could lock all of your money up for 2 years and buy the 24 month CD at 2%. This is a good rate of return, but locks up your money for longer than you might otherwise have planned. The laddering approach is to buy longer term CDs over a regular interval. In this case, we could buy a 2 year CD at 2% every 6 months. Your ladder would look like this: This gives you the 2 year rate (2%) but you are always less than 6 months until your next CD matures giving you some liquidity. When each CD matures, you then purchase another 2 year CD at the more beneficial rate. You'll always have something maturing every 6 months. Now, if you want to start with your money immediately, you can seed your ladder by buying partial terms like this: The two year time maturity time frame and the interest rates are all examples. You could have 12 CDs with one maturing every month, one maturing every quarter, etc. The benefits of CD Laddering are that a portion of your money is never far from maturity and that your interest rate is better than it otherwise would be. The risks of CD Laddering are the same as the risks of buying CDs. If you think CDs are a good investment, CD Laddering is a good way to invest at higher rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc7da4757af24dec88d9ce670f8e286", "text": "\"The consumer who opens a CD may receive a passbook or paper certificate, it now is common for a CD to consist simply of a book entry and an item shown in the consumer's periodic bank statements; that is, there is usually no \"\"certificate\"\" as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_deposit Generally speaking, CDs should offer higher interest that typically doesn't vary, over the term of that CD. So, in that way it offers a bit more security on the return. But, they also lock up your money for a specific period of time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4250ef625b8db4e0671d6671878c66e2", "text": "\"Debits' and \"\"Credits\"\" are terms used in double-entry bookkeeping. Each transaction is entered in two different places to be able to double-check accuracy. The total debits and total credits being equal is what makes the balance sheet balance. For explaining debits and credits, wikiversity has a good example using eggs that I found helpful as a student. Debits and Credits When a financial transaction is recorded, the Debits (Dr) and Credits (Cr) need to balance in order to keep the accounts in balance. An easy rule to remember is, \"\"Debit the Asset that Increases\"\" For example, if you want to practice accounting for cooking a simple breakfast, you might proceed as follows: To record breaking the eggs and putting the eggs in the frying pan In this transaction, an asset, (the egg) is split into parts and some of the asset goes in the pan and some in the trash. A Debit (Dr) is used to show that the assets in the pan and the trash both increase. A balancing Credit (Cr) is used to show that the amount of assets (whole eggs) in the egg carton has decreased. This transaction is in balance because the total Credits equal the total Debits. Everything that is covered by the Debits (yolk, white and shell) is also covered by the Credits (one whole egg)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a10ecf0a8ecfbb5d385b5f77b054faba", "text": "3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94d0de5539341e79a8a0a7842bf465a8", "text": "Can someone please explain the following in more detail please. I'm not exactly sure how and why synthetics work. > Instead of having credit default swap reference a single company like Exxon, J.P Morgan bundled together a large, diversified basket of credit derivatives that referenced hundreds of corporate credits... those who invested in J.P Morgan's invention didn't own a piece of the actual corporate loan. Instead, they owned credit default swaps - the performance of which was determined by the performance of the underlying corporate credits. This is from All the Devils are Here by Bethany Mclean and Joe Nocera", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5da9411e2f78239ad2b6ae76764d11e7", "text": "I haven't read this article, but the most pressing question I have from the headline is the timeline. We all know that triple-a rated CDOs were horrific in the financial crisis. How about ones that have been created in the past couple of years?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "580d7128f24e08befbe78bf7c0f80f29", "text": "Essentially speaking, when you purchase goods worth $100 using your card, the store has to pay about $2 for the transaction to the company that operates that stores' credit card terminal. If you withdraw cash from an ATM, you might be charged a fee for such a transaction. However, the ATM operator doesn't pay the credit processor such a transaction fee - thus, it is classified as a cash transaction. Additionally, performing cash advances off a CC is a rather good indicator of a bad financial health of the user, which increase the risk of default, and in some institutions is a factor contributing to their internal creditworthiness assessment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fcd12b68dda2f645cb239640c5a2a3b", "text": "\"From your question, I believe that you are looking for what these mean in accounting terms and not the difference between a debit and a credit card. I'll deal with purchase and sale first as this is easier. They are the same thing seen from different points of view. If I sell something to you then I have made a sale and you have made a purchase. Every sale is a purchase and every purchase is a sale. Debits and Credits are accounting terms and refer to double column accounting (the most common accounting system used). The way a set of accounts works is, accounts are set up under the following broad headings: The first 3 appear on the Balance Sheet, so called because the accounts balance (Assets = Liabilities + Equity). This is always a \"\"point-in-time\"\" snapshot of the accounts (1 June 2015). That last 3 appear on the Profit and Loss sheet, Profit (or loss) = Income - Cost of Goods Sold - Expenses. This is always an interval measure (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015). Changes in these accounts flow through to the Equity part of the Balance Sheet. When you enter a transaction the Debits always equal the Credits, they are simply applied to different accounts. Debits increase Assets, Cost of Goods Sold and Expenses and decrease Liabilities, Equity and Income. Credits do the reverse For your examples: 1. a customer buy something from me, what is the debit and credit? I will assume they pay $1,000 and the thing cost you $500 Your cash (asset) goes up by $1,000 (Debit), your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This gives you a profit of $500. 2. a customer buy something of worth 1000 but gives me 500 what is debit and credit Your cash (asset) goes up by $500 (Debit), your debtors (asset) goes up by $500, your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This also gives you a profit of $500. 3. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and pay equally what is credit and debit I assume you mean pay cash: Your cash (asset) goes down by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have swapped one asset (cash) for another (inventory). 4. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and don't pay what is credit and debit Your creditors (liability) goes up by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have gained an asset (inventory) but incurred a liability (creditors). The reason for confusion is that most people only see Debits and Credits in one place - their bank statement. Your bank statement is a journal of one of the banks liability accounts - its their liability because they owe the money to you (even loan accounts adopt this convention). Credits happen when you give money to the bank, they credit your account (increase a liability) and debit their cash balance (increase an asset). Debits are when they give money to you, they debit your account (decrease a liability) and credit their cash balance (decrease an asset) . If at the end of the period, you have a credit balance then they owe money to you, a debit balance means you owe money to them. If you were keeping a book of accounts then your record of the transactions would be a mirror image of the bank's because you would be looking at it from your point of view.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bc33f20c2ef112644e831d9bac77ba0", "text": "Edit: This is paywalled so I pasted it here. LONDON—The synthetic CDO, a villain of the global financial crisis, is back. A decade ago, investors’ bad bets on collateralized debt obligations helped fuel the crisis. Billed as safe, they turned out to be anything but. Now, more investors are returning to CDOs—and so are concerns that excess is seeping into the aging bull market. In the U.S., the CDO market sunk steadily in the years after the financial crisis but has been fairly flat since 2014. In Europe, the total size of market is now rising again—up 5.6% annually in the first quarter of the year and 14.4% in the last quarter of 2016, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Collateralized debt obligations package a bunch of assets, such as mortgage or corporate loans, into a security that is chopped up into pieces and sold to investors. The assets inside a synthetic CDO aren’t physical debt securities but rather derivatives, which in turn reference other investments such as loans or corporate debt. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs became a symbol of the financial excesses of the era. Labelled an “atomic bomb” in the movie “The Big Short,” they ultimately were the vehicle that spread the risks from the mortgage market throughout the financial system. Synthetic CDOs crammed with exposure to subprime mortgages—or even other CDOs—are long gone. The ones that remain contain credit-default swaps referencing a range of European and U.S. companies, effectively allowing investors to bet whether corporate defaults will pick up. Desperate for something that pays better than basic government bonds, insurance companies, asset managers and high-net worth investors are scooping up investments like synthetic CDOs, bankers say, which had largely become the preserve of hedge funds after 2008. Investment banks, which create and sell CDOs, are happy to oblige. Placid markets have made trading revenue weak this year, and such structured products are an increasingly important business line. Synthetic CDOs got “bad press,” says Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions. But “that market has never ceased to fully function,” he added. These days, Mr. Champion still trades synthetic CDOs, receiving a stream of income for effectively insuring against a sharp rise in European corporate defaults. Many investors, though, still view the products as unnecessarily complex and are concerned they may be hard to offload when markets get choppy—as they did in the last crisis. From the DepthsThe amount outstanding of European collateralized debt obligations has been growing again after years of shrinking. “We don’t see that demand from our clients and we wouldn’t recommend it,” said Markus Stadlmann, chief investment officer at Lloyds Private Banking, citing concerns over the products’ lack of transparency and lack of liquidity, meaning it could be hard to offload a position when needed. The return of synthetic CDOs could present other risks. Even if banks are currently less willing to loan money to help clients juice returns, credit default swaps can be very leveraged, potentially allowing investors to make outsize bets. Structured products accounted for nearly all the $2.6 billion year-on-year growth in trading-division revenue at the top 12 global investment banks in the first quarter, according to Amrit Shahani, research director at financial consultancy Coalition. “There has been an uptick in interest in any kind of yield-enhancement structure,” said Kokou Agbo-Bloua, a managing director in Société Générale SA’s investment bank. The fastest growth this year has come in credit—the epicenter of the 2007-08 crisis. The top global 12 investment banks had around $1.5 billion in revenue in structured credit in the first quarter, according to Coalition, more than doubling since the first quarter of 2016. Structured equities are largest overall, a business dominated by sales of derivatives linked to moves in stock prices, with revenue of $5 billion in the first quarter. “The low-yield environment hurts,” said Lionel Pernias, a credit-fund manager at AXA Investment Managers. “So there are a lot of asset owners looking at structured credit.” These days, the typical synthetic CDO involves a portfolio of credit-default swaps on a range of companies. The portfolio is sliced into tranches, and investors receive payouts based on the performance of the swaps. Those investors owning lower tranches tend to get paid more but are subject to higher losses if the swaps sour. Structured GrowthBank revenues from structured products such as collateralized debt obligations are rising faster than conventionaltrading of stocks, bonds and currencies. For instance, an investor can sell insurance against a pick-up in defaults in the lowest—or “equity”—tranche of the iTraxx Europe index, a widely traded CDS benchmark that tracks European investment-grade companies. In return, the investor will receive regular payments, but those will shrink with every company default and stop altogether once 3% of the portfolio has been wiped out through defaults. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs based on standardized indexes like iTraxx Europe suffered losses as traders expected defaults to pick up. Investors who held on, though, have since done “great,” says Mr. Champion. Investors who agreed to insure against a rise in defaults for 10 years on the equity tranche of the iTraxx Europe index in March 2008 have made roughly 10% a year, according to an analysis of data from IHS Markit . That’s despite defaults from two companies in the index: Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Portugal Telecom International Finance BV. In contrast, investors who sold insurance on tailored CDOs packed with riskier credits—such as Icelandic banks or monoline insurers—would have been on the hook for losses. Synthetic CDOs have evolved since the crisis, bankers say. For instance, most are shorter-dated, running up to around two to three years rather than seven to 10 years. Some banks will only slice and dice standardized CDS indexes that trade frequently in the market rather than craft tailored baskets of credits. There are also fewer banks involved in arranging these trades. Those active include BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Société Générale. Postcrisis regulations have forced banks to set aside more capital against these transactions and use less leverage. That has encouraged banks to parcel out the risk to clients rather than keeping it on their own books. “There is a lot more regulation and scrutiny and a lot less leverage,” said Mr. Agbo-Bloua. Mr. Champion says he only trades tranches based on standardized CDS indexes, which he says are easier to buy and sell than more tailored products. Currently, he sees value in selling default protection on super-senior tranches. Mr. Champion said he has to lay down only around $1 million in upfront margin costs on a $100 million trade of this kind. “The cost of leverage in the derivatives space is very low,” he said. Any expectations of default rates picking up could inflict losses on synthetic CDOs, though at the moment analysts forecast they should decline. Still, the memory of how the market behaved in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis is likely to keep many investors on the sidelines. “If you’re the person responsible for buying the synthetic CDO that suddenly goes wrong, your career risk is bigger than if you’d bought a plain vanilla bond that goes wrong. It has a bad name,” said Ulf Erlandsson, a portfolio manager at start-up hedge fund Glacier Impact, who until recently oversaw credit for one of Sweden’s public pension funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a38604048fadd10f710848179e588073", "text": "I see this as less conspiratorial than the housing market shenanigans because auto manufacturers really have no other choice but to make financing easier because if they didn't, they wouldn't be selling many cars and trucks. The 2008 financial meltdown happened mainly because of derivatives. I don't know of any packaged bonds or CDOs made up of auto loans with credit default swaps riding on their backs. So, a wave of defaulted auto loans just means that it will become a buyers market for used cars - if not another signpost of general American economic collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d93ed13de3eef6dda4b4f39f665680cd", "text": "Thanks man. Even the credit default swaps were initially an amazing deal for the banks selling them. They got to collect huge amounts of premium for awhile thinking they'd never have to pay out. For the stories we heard in the Big Short, I bet there's hundreds of people out there who paid premiums for years until they couldn't anymore and never got their big payout. It's crazy that you could basically take out an insurance policy on something you had no stake or equity in. It was literally a bet. The data supported the defaults too, though. Looking at [delinquency rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRSFRMACBS), Q1 of 2010 had a staggering 11.53% of all mortgage payments being late. That's insane. Some people saw it creeping up and recognized that Q1 '08 was 76% higher than the previous year and was only climbing, and knew it was going to pop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d", "text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d6891b59c05fe8185ee3514ae4cec52", "text": "Yes, that would qualify as a scam to me. I didn't think they could do most of those things, especially buying insurance without your permission. When my area was reclassified as a flood area, they told me I had to provide proof of flood insurance, and if I didn't, they would get it for me at a price that might be higher than if I did it myself. But there was no problem with my choice of an online flood insurance company that was much cheaper than my AAA insurance for the same. I think that at least some of the rules are from the underwriter (?) like Fannie Mae or whoever it is that they work through. I don't really know all the ins and outs, though. I do know that when I had a loan through Wells Fargo, I had to increase my insurance in one area to match the value in another - I forget the details, but I think I could have reduced coverage in an alternate category if I had so desired.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5edeb26c2acac747fc6c922ee9e91a05	What does net selling or buying of a stock mean?	[ { "docid": "6b9aea189c196b6b10d6a57150dc113f", "text": "Consider the mechanic which actually drives the 'price' of a stock. In simplest terms, the 'price' of a stock is the price at which the most recent trade occurred. ie: if the price of IBM is $100/share, that means the last time someone bought IBM stock, they paid $100. Above and below the 'spot price', are dozens/hundreds/thousands of buyers and sellers who have placed orders that no one is yet willing to match. ie: if IBM's spot price is at $100, there could still be 10,000 people willing to sell for $101 (called the 'ask' price, for the lowest price someone is currently willing to sell at), and 15,000 willing to buy for $99 (called the 'bid' price, for the highest price someone is currently willing to buy for). Until someone is willing to buy for $101, then no one will be able to sell at $101. Until someone is willing to sell for $99, no one will be able to buy for $99. Typically orders are placed in the market at a particular limit. Meaning that those orders to buy at $99/sell at $101 are already in the 'system', and will be matched immediately as soon as someone is willing to meet the price on the other side. Now consider general market economics: high demand drives up price, and high supply drives down price. If the details above for IBM were yesterday, and today some news came out that IBM was laying off employees, imagine that another 10,000 people who held shares wanted to sell. Now there would be 20,000 sellers and only 15,000 buyers. If those new sellers were aggressive about wanting to sell, they would have to drop their price to $99, to match the highest buyers in the market. Put together, this means that as more sellers enter the market, supply of shares increases, driving down price. Conversely, as more buyers enter the market, demand for shares increases, driving up share price. As a result of the above, you can say that (all else being equal) if price for a stock goes up, there were more buyers that day, and if price goes down, there were more sellers that day. On the face of it, that is not necessarily true, because you could have the same number of buyers and sellers, one side could have simply decreased/increased their acceptable price to match the other side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f9967fe9ae5e3501cb548dd4fa739dd", "text": "What does it mean when some one says that today there was a lot of net selling or buying in a stock. What does it mean because for every selling there is also a buying going on then how can you determine a selling or buying ? Generally if the price of stock has gone down compared to previous day, the trend is of selling. As the price can be volatile, there maybe few trades that are above close price of previous day, or below close price of previous day. How can you calculate average trade price for a stock It is simple {sum of all [price*quantity]}/quantity. Related question Equity market inflow meaning", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1089e6bf48d8e525ba8d50f75a91228b", "text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f619e556111df0fd3eaf002df79a9597", "text": "Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df7987557ab5a154c6eb615a64a24b6d", "text": "\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \"\"quadrupled\"\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1adf6bf3b115f70cb8d77a0be6e30f97", "text": "\"Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the \"\"including\"\" but not in the \"\"excluding\"\" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 \"\"Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings\"\" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from \"\"Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor\"\" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 \"\"Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cf5efd93208588af4d31a00b6e7d2d", "text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc4fec57148f221da98f849fa2699b5", "text": "\"....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock. The seller receives cash. You receive a stock certificate. This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices. There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller. The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years. The day trading robot doesn't \"\"rob\"\" you of any profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10eb73ad36ad882760546e1c2d65b48a", "text": "As stock prices have declined, the net worth of people has come down. Imagine owning a million shares of a stock worth $100/share. This is worth $100,000,000. Now, if the stock is suddenly trading at $50/share then some would say you have lost $50,000,000. The value of the stock is less. The uncertainty is always there as there are differences between one day's close and another day's open possibly. The sale price is likely to be near the last trade is what is being used here. If you place a market order to sell your stock, the price may move between the time the order is placed and when it is filled. There are limit orders that could be used if you want to control the minimum price you get though you give up that the order has to be filled as otherwise people could try to sell shares for millions of dollars that wouldn't work out well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0b2dec86cc33c2268c96a302983fdcf", "text": "Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfc05bf84ee3c04629299ba87c620b6f", "text": "\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a189b80c56ab2a8eb314620583105a8", "text": "\"The Business Dictionary has three definitions of \"\"turnover\"\". When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91e13572f4af39783a97352f0aec9248", "text": "The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward. The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss. Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this. My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adbdd54925b565f216b4280ab7340fb6", "text": "Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38f23c5cd247d666e7f5ef10e997db2b", "text": "\"netting means to combine cash inflows and outflows (e.g. debits/credits, payments/receipts, income/expense) by subtracting the sum of all outflows from the sum of all inflows, creating one transaction. For example, if you make two trades in one day with your broker - one to buy a security for $100 and one to sell it for $110 - rather then you sending your broker $100 and them sending you $110, the transactions are \"\"netted\"\" - meaning they will send you the \"\"net\"\" amount of $10 ($110 inflow - $100 outflow). In a more general sense (\"\"netting of instructions\"\") it would mean to combine all instructions and only apply the \"\"net\"\" effect - e.g. one step forward, two steps back would combine to a \"\"net\"\" one step back. Most likely it will apply to the exchange of money, but it could be applied more broadly. Note that there doesn't have to be both inflows and outflows. You can also \"\"net\"\" multiple inflows (or outflows) into one transaction by just adding them all up, but typical business usage is to reduce the number of transactions by combining inflows and outflows.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfd59d5453f7bac8980471a1619cf26d", "text": "Basic arbitrage is the (near-)simultaneous purchasing and selling of things that are convertible. The classic example is the international trading of equities. If someone in London wants to purchase a hundred shares of Shell for 40 GBP ea. and someone in New York wants to sell you a hundred shares of Shell for 61 USD ea., you can buy the shares from the guy in New York, sell them to the guy in London and convert your GBP back in to USD for a profit of $41.60 minus fees. Now, if after you buy the shares in New York, the price in London goes down, you'll be left holding 100 shares of Shell that you don't want. So instead you should borrow 100 shares in London and sell them at the exact same time that you buy the shares in New York, thus keeping your net position at 0. In fact, you should also borrow 4000GBP and convert them to USD at the same time, so that exchange rate changes don't get you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a", "text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
df1d44a6e3ce372b7d81255b475c2571	What is street-side booking?	[ { "docid": "1a48d26db49b7cce01b23f85ca9c3f47", "text": "\"This is a technical term referring to the \"\"double entry\"\"-styled book keeping of trades by brokers. Suppose a client executes a buy order with their broker. The broker's accounting for this \"\"trade\"\" will be recorded as two different \"\"deals\"\" : One \"\"deal\"\" showing the client as buyer and the broker as seller, and a second \"\"deal\"\" showing the broker as buyer and the clearing house as seller. The net result of these two deals is that the broker has no net position while the client has a net buy and the clearing house has a net sell with respect to this broker's account as accounted for internally by the broker. (And the same methods apply for a client sell order.) The client/broker \"\"deal\"\" record - i.e., the client side of the trade - is called the \"\"client side booking\"\", while the broker/clearing house \"\"deal\"\" record is called the \"\"street side booking\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d90195024b1c1e1fa899da81704e26c", "text": "The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side. The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM. I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca. I trade on Arca for the client. Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca. If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f511c5c8f36267e47374254da89da9fe", "text": "Considering that they are paying non-waitstaff 2.13/hr is a pretty good indication that they are looking at the (short term) bottom line, employee satisfaction (and service) be-damned. While pushing people to part-time status might not have been 'in the parking lot', I'd be willing to bet that cutting costs in any legal manner possible is probably right in the decision maker's wheelhouse. This approach can make a lot of sense...if you aren't in the service industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f51747c2902b870e31601ffd4ea04099", "text": "Jackson Hole Backcountry Rentals, is the right place offers the best side by side and UTV rentals for the adventure lovers. We offer everything that you need in order to experience and enjoy a safe ride on a great day. Reserve Now! Call us at (307)2642525 for more info!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11bc291a6e553d3a51470c29ada8385f", "text": "No. Not in the Uk anyway, they are just an extra person/company that you have to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc3f8d06b9fe93aa816e2e24c7cda133", "text": "Our company provides the different types of online services, such as flights booking, hotels booking, tours and travel booking. If you want to go Sydney for your next vacation with your family, then you can book your next tour and Hotels in Sydney at our company website. In the Sydney, Shorelines are a famous draw, including any semblance of Bondi Beach. Bondi's Campbell Parade is a bustling region both day and night, and shops, bistros, and bars line the beachfront.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e34ce0a7a0edc4d625f0313f6e93ed7", "text": "The rental industry is seasonal. They purchase additional inventory (vehicles) for their busy seasons and sell the extra inventory afterwards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5d31c3625214c31676b76c164ed6b", "text": "\"Yeah it is actually. Another, one of the more out there concepts is Jo and Joe. The trend is sort of restructuring what we typically think of as traditional luxury services because younger travelers don't care so much about them, for example a bell boy. Millennials travelers instead are looking for \"\"unmanufactured\"\" experiences, using airBNB, looking to be more immersed where they are traveling and traditional luxury hotel are beginning to feel to sterile. So millennial hotels are trying to manufacture spaces for unmanufactured experiences. Big common areas, where you can leave your stuff in the room, go down to the lobby, and drink at the bar that takes up 5x more lobby space than the front desk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "787f11784d1d805cb3fe64a103a5078d", "text": ">he found the process of booking the flight to be archaic and obscure. It required phone conversations with a broker, tedious insurance paperwork... and >JetSmarter acts as the concierge service, helping their tech-savvy users book flights and meet their travel needs, primarily through a messengering service on the app (although 24/7 human phone support is available). This doesn't sound tremendously different than what every single charter company does already. >JetSmarter hopes to enable jet-setters to sell unused seats on their chartered flights. Currently, “empty legs” are available at a discounted rate. Again, pretty much all charter companies already offer discounted empty legs. I do not know if any existing companies have an app, and that seems to be the only unique feature of JetSmarter but that's really all that it is. They don't provide pilots or aircraft so hopefully their 'finders fee' is enough to keep them afloat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fad27976922503eead7445495e5a5c2c", "text": "TravelGuysOnline is the largest online hotels and flight booking website in the United Kingdom. We also provide adventure tour and car hire service. If you want to cheap car hire for any destination, then you can search on our website and book your car at the cheapest rent. It is hard to convey the value of reputation and good service. However, with car hire, this comes in the form of quality cars that do not break down, 24/7 service and availability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6ba08c4083832fbb95bad5aa9fc8385", "text": "I'm on the other side! I was recently (just today) extended an informal offer from a team that's seeing some pretty big growth recently. I'm 6 months into my entry/mid level management position and I've been thinking about working in client-facing roles. The earning potential is greater, and I'm attracted by the prospect of being your own boss/reporting to your team instead of where I'm currently at, a cog in a giant corporate hierarchy. It's nice as I get to cruise sometimes when things are quiet, and I won't feel stuck in a neverending loop of prospecting and closing. Right now, I'm just a messenger - I figure a research position would be much the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c45d1303c18a03e675efd46a16f3242c", "text": "The job I have now, I am lucky enough to be able to be lax. At my last job I would have been fired if I wasn't available at all times. I also had clients who expected me to be available whenever they called or I would lose them. It wasn't being a doormat. It was the definition of the job and everyone from the lowest person on the pole to the top did the same thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dc70523c2d5268a664981c3e619f05f", "text": "DayPassWireless is a provider of wireless air card rentals, Wi-Fi rental and mobile hotspots rentals nationwide. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T air cards are available on rent for one day to several months with daily rates ranging between $4.79 and $9.79.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb19bc4e2cb5eac7b2d169fad8d2cfc1", "text": "Pro-Tip: You can get free reservations from many major rental companies (no credit card required, no cancellation fee even if you no call/no show), so you can often make redundant bookings to have fallback options. As discussed elsewhere in this thread any or all of those reservations might end up being worthless, but people with a reservation generally get priority over people without one, so it's at least slightly better than nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fad5c288cdc71bfe74cf658261fc5a7f", "text": "Ok I read the article and yeah I'm completely off topic. It's opening up the possibly for people to create apps etc or retrieve information from it. I guess an example would be a booking site linked to airbnb availability. Maybe we'll see a combo site including hotel space availability as well as airbnb availability. I've also heard of VRBO if that's a real thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9b14590f5f078d5cf8ba640325c7ff0", "text": "\"Yes, they are. Ridesharing is just a term for Unmarked taxi booked through app. I have no issue with that, since \"\"Government regulated taxi\"\" is so awful in almost every city on earth, that ridesharing has improved safety and convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fd51c1df927384b3918a2977173447", "text": "\"Hi Ly Sok You could give free maps out to your clients. Easily print these off. Talk about the city as you drive through pointing out good value restaurants and places of interest. When someone buys something from me. I try to understand it as \"\"someone buying my time\"\" so I like to think of there problems. Your clients are mostly tourists or locals I assume. Locals like to here local news and learn things -like new roads being built or a cinema opening. Crime and cool things going on. Tourists want to make there money go further and so learning about the best local experience is often what they want to do. A pick up service is often appreciated and possibly you could emphasis to tourists how safe certain areas are and that maybe they should hide there flashy phone or camera in this area. I feel recommendations are the way to go. Giving a number they can text you on makes it easier to send a location. For pick ups. Since uber is a big thing for clients back home. Maybe you could parody the name \"\"TukUber\"\" This would instantly make people remember you and you could also look at how you could make your service like uber on a personal level. Sounds like a fun project. Good luck\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
aa8a257ef2600cac373b7c461a28f17d	In which country can I set up a small company so that I pay a lower rate of corporate tax?	[ { "docid": "bc5e4cb4631274d24c6ed6886da7d9c4", "text": "\"There are countries out there that are known as tax havens, where they offer companies low or no taxes on earned revenue. I haven't looked into this in over a decade, but recall that countries like the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Ireland, and Nauru, to name a few fit that tag. But like bstpierre stated, there's a reason why the IBM's of the world can pull that off easier then us mere mortals. They have the financial clout to make sure they have accountants that dot every i, cross every t, and close every loophole that would give an \"\"in\"\" to the folks at the IRS, CRA, Inland Revenue, or who have you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c481d80bad34629d9f8441ecea5d327d", "text": "Grass is always greener at the other side of the hill. Tax is only a small proportion of your costs. you could easily set up a small company in a so called tax haven. But are you willing to emigrate? If not, will the gain in less taxes cover the frequent travel costs? Even if you would like to emigrate less tax might be deceiving. I recently had a discussion with a US based friend. In the US petrol is way cheaper then in Europe. THere were many examples in differences, but when you actually sum up everything, cost of living was kind of the same. So you might gain on tax, but loose on petrol, or child care to just name some examples For big companies who think globally it makes sense to seek the cheapest tax formula. For them it does not matter where they are located. For us mortals it does.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3dacd68d1d7ee3186c9ba90784abf772", "text": "\"Call me rude, but I would be less concerned with taxes and more concerned with increasing your income. Double your income and say \"\"fuck you\"\" to the taxes! Also, I'm no expert on taxes, but a corporation would not prevent you from having income so you would likely be passing the profits through and still paying the same income tax rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5206896e88021feaaa89d92eb421afeb", "text": "Sure you can. Obviously it means your company will make less profit, saving you 20% corporation tax, while your personal income will be higher, meaning you will likely spend more than 20% in income tax and National Insurance contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c81d67cf240c18c4b7619869492e6b39", "text": "if it was not China, then India, Brazil, South Africa, or Russia... the companies want lower taxes and wages, and will go where these are, in Brazil where I live there is a Shenzhen and Hong Kong equivalent(Polo de manaus), but never boomed because China had even lower wages and taxes, if the taxes were lower maybe the factories would come back but I doubt. simplify the law and the taxes would be enough of a change for a start. each day america looks closer to Brazil's 16 metric tons of taxes law and 69% corporate taxes", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c76a49480c763077c8874d844213b235", "text": "\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \"\"partial\"\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d76bbc43cd3bf93b8b9e3ae212e99e7b", "text": "\"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the \"\"Federal Government\"\" (IRS is part of that) and the \"\"State Government\"\" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c84b819d643d7752d14fc9c0ed08e1e", "text": "No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d1306a254ef3c211c21b48d9f1c434c", "text": "In cases like this you should be aware that tax treaties may exist and that countries are generally willing to enter into them. Their purpose is to help prevent double taxation. Tax treaties often times give you a better tax rate than even being a resident of the countries in question! (For instance, the Italy to US tax rate is lower than simply doing business in many United States) This should guide your google search, here is something I found for Germany/Spain http://tmagazine.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2011G_CM2300_Spain-Germany-sign-new-tax-treaty.pdf It appears that the dividend tax rate under that treaty is 5% , to my understanding, the income tax rates are often multiples higher! I read that spain's income tax rate is 18% So what I would do is see if there is the possibility of deferring taxes in the lower tax jurisidiction and then doing a large one time dividend when conveninet. But Germany isn't really known for its low taxes, being a Federal Republic, the taxes are levied by both the states and the federal government. Look to see if your business structure can avoid being taxed as the entity level: ie. your business' earnings are always distributed to the owners - which are not germany citizens or residents - as dividends. So this way you avoid Germany's 15% federal corporate tax, and you avoid Spain's 18% income tax, and instead get Spanish dividends at 5% tax. Anyway, contact a tax attorney to help interpret the use of the regulations, but this is the frame of mind you should be thinking in. Because it looks like spain is willing to do a tax credit if you pay taxes in germany, several options here to lower your tax footprint.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "432d2b333eb58b124a77e18a87d18bea", "text": "Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Let's say there is a company that uses infrastructure of UK, Germany, France, US, Japan, Italy and Spain (because it's a global multinational). Corporate taxes in these countries are 19%, 29.65%, 33% (for large companies), 35%, 32.1%, 27.9% and 25%. Now according to your logic, each of these countries should tax the company's profits. Such a company in your world would pay more in taxes than it makes in profits (tax rate > 100%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f279ccfe62d7b6568888998f8fc0263b", "text": "The issue only arises when the investments grow in size. A small amount won't trigger the higher tax rates. If the amount is large enough, then consider using either: Insurance products that are 'segregated', or RRSPs in your own name after your business pays you wages, or Gifting to other family members.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee070e9fcc64762aee4c0b0cfc7d3343", "text": "A lower statuory rate, relative to the statutory rates of other developed countries (every single one of which have statutory rates much lower than ours), incentivises firms to invest more money in the US and hire more American workers, and to make good business decisions, rather than forcing them to make decisions based on steep, arbitrarily set tax liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0eb885a9a2d762f0084e018943e1036", "text": "\"Yeah, I understand that is a nebulous term, akin to stopping \"\"pork\"\" in various bills. However, getting back to that Economist article, this really stood out to me: > America’s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes. I'm not clear on where they got that number, but assuming it is true, there are certainly plenty of places we could start if we were to lower the tax rate to a sane level. Also, I still don't see how just lowering the tax rate and removing the repatriation tax on foreign earned profit would truly disincentivize inversion. If there are countries like Bermuda still out there with say, random number here, a 5% corporate tax, wouldn't the incentive still exist?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8cb781b721834ee11d37597b7ec7030", "text": "There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that. And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a03e11b09578cfefddc3909b61c1c49", "text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "547c7695b77b8fca33f9c4f66557eee8", "text": "As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned, please consult a lawyer and CA. In general you would have to pay tax on the profit you make, in the example on this 10% you make less of any expenses to run the business. depending on how you are incorporating the business, there would be an element of service tax apart from corporate tax or income tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746c2df9ea5a586fc65a71a374c66c25", "text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7e667a7e719566b3bdff7a6de69935b3	What's are the differences between “defined contribution” and “defined benefit” pension plans?	[ { "docid": "19959ce8926231d57446a4c3e08c3578", "text": "Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "687ac474250758ff3e2a86704cb5f748", "text": "Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them. When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option. Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire. By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions. Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds. For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans. Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working. Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends. Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution. Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable. The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected. Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d12492947448bdc73d98d43dfaa4bfd", "text": "In short, defined contribution plans yield different amounts of return based on the market whereas defined benefit plans yield predetermined amounts defined based on factors such as salary and years of service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1a37e58ac26142531d541d0af2ca19c", "text": "As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d0e622644fac5c51c872683f0cc8e444", "text": "Also, consider the possibility of early withdrawal penalties. Regular 401k early withdrawal (for non-qualified reasons) gets you a 10% penalty, in addition to tax, on the entire amount, even if you're just withdrawing your own contributions. Withdrawing from a Roth 401k can potentially mean less penalties (if it's been in place 5 years, and subject to a bunch of fine print of course).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d748bd4ea29786d0b5714c37cbe35e6", "text": "My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "727962f326f2aefde12638f2acc4dc80", "text": "\"Your math is correct. If you take the same amount of pre-tax wages (assuming that that amount can be fully contributed in both Traditional and Roth cases), and assuming the same flat tax rate when contributing and withdrawing, then the two are the same. However, we don't have a flat tax, and due to the way our tax brackets work, there is often a slight advantage to Traditional accounts. Recall that not every dollar of your income is taxed at the same rate; the tax bracket only describes the rate that the last dollar of your income is taxed at. But some of your income will be taxed at lower brackets. No matter what your income is, your first $x of income will be taxed at 10%, then $y at 15%, etc. So what is the tax rate of the dollars of income that you used to contribute to a retirement account? Is it the first dollars of income? The last dollars of income? or what? Since we are comparing an after-tax contribution (Roth) versus a pre-tax contribution (Traditional) whose income doesn't show up in taxable income, and all other income is equal, the dollars contributed is considered to come from the top in the Roth case. Similarly, when you withdraw in the Traditional case, the withdrawal counts as income; is it the first dollar of income or the last dollar of income? Again, since we are comparing the situation where the withdrawal counts as income (Traditional) with the one where it doesn't (Roth), all other income being equal, the taxable income is considered to be added to the top. The difference is that when you contribute to a retirement account, you contribute a very small percentage of your income every year, probably no more than 5-10%. If we count down from the top, this small percentage of your income probably falls wholly within a bracket (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely in the same bracket), so the entire contribution is at the same rate -- your marginal rate, the rate you cite as your tax bracket. However, when you withdraw in retirement, it is likely that every year, the retirement account withdrawals account for a large percentage of your income, maybe even half or more. If we count down from the top, this large percentage of your income probably crosses into lower brackets (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely to be in different brackets), so the withdrawal is partly taxed at one rate, partly taxed at another. So if your tax bracket is 15% in the Traditional case, it's likely that your withdrawal is taxed partly at 15% and partly at 10%. So in this case, the average tax rate on the withdrawal is lower than your \"\"bracket\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634312a11375ed10181224df31580810", "text": "\"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "520e7ba0e4b551aa44c93970fffdde0d", "text": "On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are. Most pensions are not completely funded. In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "927ea2518401bc61d9560f1f7bd8e97f", "text": "\"As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've \"\"won the game\"\" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of \"\"comfortably\"\" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. \"\"Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?\"\"), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to \"\"leave a legacy\"\" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a \"\"dream\"\" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your \"\"needs\"\" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask \"\"if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative\"\", but of course if it's \"\"too conservative\"\" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's \"\"conservative enough\"\". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a32f54bdd61a5215210518695d1f65e1", "text": "\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e879f38fa58808c3ac90ce38ebcf6904", "text": "The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cfee81ee560fd815c85df96c86850ae", "text": "One important thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the vast majority of companies have eventually eliminated their Company provided Pension Plans and replaced it with a 401K with some degree of matching. There is a cost advantage to doing this as companies no longer have to maintain or work to maintain a 100% vested pension plan. This takes a great burden off them. They also don't have to manage the pension/annuity that the retirement benefit entails.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2513f1831e9f296ea3b69df68705a24c", "text": "am I comparing apples and oranges? Yes - different purposes, different laws, different regulations. One rationale could be that HSA benefits are immediate while retirement benefits are deferred, so the benefit of employer contributions are not felt until retirement and thus do not need as stringent a limit, but that's a complete guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bdcd1b1605b952c67b41e225da099a", "text": "\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c78db55b0acf1739683447af345420ff", "text": "You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer). There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty. There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity. There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions. You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5b20e52a87063de073192df82373049", "text": "Public sector and private industry retirement plans, taxation and estate planning would be the most substantial differences between the two countries. The concepts for accumulating wealth are the same, and if you are doing anything particularly lucrative with an above average amount of risk, the aforementioned differences are not very relevant, for a twenty something.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aba3a1d08a41fb457d6652751c4d6593", "text": "\"I don't understand the worker mentality of accepting to be part of pension plans. The downside risk to you is ridiculously high -- you're basically making an investment that the next 30 years of corporate management and the company as a whole are going to be good. Pension plans are among the first to go.. employees that retired 20-30 years ago add no current value to the company, unless you consider that current employees are motivated by the idea of a pension or working for a company that \"\"takes care\"\" of its employees. Also, part of the reason pension funds are blowing up is that the risk-free return rate is less than 1%. I don't know who to blame or thank for that, but with government bonds now trading at negative yields in real and sometimes even absolute terms (see: Swiss yields), what else are you supposed to do?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e34d27ffdae7830ad13cb5ff1bd6e6b", "text": "> Why are you against making sure their pensions are funded? Pension actuarial analyst here: Pensions can give employee's benefits for time worked long before the plan came into existence. Those 'liabilities' are paid off over 30-40 years. It's absolutely normal. In addition, pension plans may also pay off increases in benefits, such as an early retirement window, over that same 30-40 years. Pension funds use assumptions on future investment earnings to 'guess' their contribution. Sometimes, they don't earn as much as they expect the plan to earn. Sometimes, they try to keep contributions low as an alternative to scrapping the plan entirely. So putting this all together: if pension plans are instantly and always 100% funded? You don't get pension plans, with defined and guaranteed retirement benefits. You get plans where the employee defers their own money into accounts, with no particular guarantees at all. And that's why we are fine with unfunded pensions. Oh, by the way, the PBGC charges higher fees to covered pension plans that have more unfunded liability! So if a company doesn't want to pay contributions, they have to pay more elsewhere. It all evens out.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
99516a4a0d1855f4728f969733dd48b7	Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other?	[ { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f888867b198b061e1afe6774f02c704", "text": "As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0eadff1bdec0fa49ee8e33f7037d3e4f", "text": "\"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a \"\"split\"\"). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or \"\"approximations\"\". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices. If Facebook were removed from the S&P 500 overnight tonight, the fund would sell its shares at the price buyers are bidding the next market day at 09:30. This could be significantly different than the price today, which the index records. Securities are purchased in blocks. Rather than buying 0.000478 shares of General Motors each time someone invests a dollar, they wait for a few people and then buy a full share or a round lot. Securities are substituted. With lots of analysis, it may be determined that two stocks move in tandem. The fund may purchase two shares of General Motors rather than one of General Motors and Ford. This halves transaction costs. Debt is used. As part of substitution, equities may be replaced by options. Option pricing shows that ownership of options is equivalent to holding an amount of debt. Other forms of leverage may also be employed to achieve desired market exposure. See also: beta. Dividends are bundled. VFINX, the largest S&P 500 tracking fund, pays dividends quarterly rather than immediately as earned. The dividend money which is not paid to you is either deployed to buy other securities or put into a sinking fund for payment. There are many reasons why you can't get the actual performance quoted in an index. And for other more exotic indices, like VIX the volatility index, even more so. The best you can do is work with someone that has a good reputation and measure their performance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c3cae36063eadd9217422bcd0c21c37", "text": "As a futures trader, I can tell you that the highs and lows for the ES futures diverge simply because they trade around the clock, from 6PM ET to 5PM ET the next day. The SPX is only open during market hours, as is the SPY, but the SPY also trades in the extended hours sessions for about 3.5 hours before and after the regular hours of 930 AM ET to 4PM ET ET. So bottom line, while they pretty much track each other, the difference in their trading hours results in the highs and lows being different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "316e57e2c474493f63b6f03c78c7bfcf", "text": "What you should compare is SPX, SPY NAV, and ES fair value. Like others have said is SPX is the index that others attempt to track. SPY tracks it, but it can get a tiny bit out of line as explained here by @Brick . That's why they publish NAV or net asset value. It's what the price should be. For SPY this will be very close because of all the participants. The MER is a factor, but more important is something called tracking error, which takes into account MER plus things like trading expenses plus revenue from securities lending. SPY (the few times I've checked) has a smaller tracking error than the MER. It's not much of a factor in pricing differences. ES is the price you'll pay today to get SPX delivered in the future (but settled in cash). You have to take into account dividends and interest, this is called fair value. You can find this usually every morning so you can compare what the futures are saying about the underlying index. http://www.cnbc.com/pre-markets/ The most likely difference is you're looking at different times of the day or different open/close calculations.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3623cb3175230cdde8f3cf5abed78175", "text": "\"Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are \"\"all based on the S&P.\"\" Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about \"\"technicals\"\" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a \"\"mathematically pure\"\" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is \"\"right\"\"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1e4efc8d488772225b890384c97761b", "text": "This article is so dumb. Passive investors should be concerned about poor corporate governance just as much as anyone else. The whole point is that active investors are more hesitant to put their money into companies like snap. Inclusion into an index could lead to technical buying. By ensuring the bare minimum standard in terms of corporate governance, S&P is actually protecting passive investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3a1c1a22b4ef798a3315cc961bded21", "text": "In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a80dc7533ccb40699db040f79d2ee423", "text": "\"There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%. A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense. For the fact that studies (Google \"\"Dalbar\"\" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that \"\"I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P\"\" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c86a630ecf155dcaf2bee7e2e0a1963", "text": "\"I mean, I'd say \"\"no shit\"\". The model is easy to reproduce (see the inverse model proposed by CHX and the new NYSE American), and people don't have a real incentive to trade there. IEX's main selling point to the buy side was the reduced price impact order router, which ultimately went away when they became an exchange. Listings could be interesting, but I can't see why any company that doesn't have some sort of statement to make would want to list there versus the big two, or BATS. Hell, even BATS, a much more established market, has had a hard time drawing listings. I'm glad they've seen a small bump in market share in the last few months, but I can't see them becoming one of the big three players any time soon (especially after having shat all over the industry during their launch period). Side note: The UTP SIP (and soon the CTA SIP) are both much faster than when IEX went live. Turns out inside updates via the SIP are received faster than the prop market data feed, and faster than updates received over an order entry connection. Under these circumstances the street knows a trade occurred before the participants in the trade. This information asymmetry often results in market makers getting run the hell over, and makes them less likely to quote at the inside on your market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f0601be1f9b011df688d8b6ebf0f923", "text": "An index will drop a company for several reasons: A fund decides how close they want to mirror the index. Some do so exactly, others only approximate the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac8519ecdfef7fe122c4fde90a549d", "text": "\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096", "text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3be2b64b0a6817534c811ba341dbca23", "text": "I'm not exactly sure, but it may be due to liquidity preference. SPY has a much higher volume (30d average of roughly 70m vs. 3.3m, 1.9m for IVV, VOO respectively), and similarly has a narrow bid ask spread of about 0.01 compared to 0.02 for the other two. I could be wrong, but I'm going to leave this post up and look in to it later, I'm curious too. The difference is very consistent though, so it may be something in their methodology.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b5eaed08c1cfa0ee6679393252ffd58", "text": "Both of these are futures contracts on the Ibovespa Brasil Sao Paulo Stock Exchange Index; the mini being exactly that, a mini version (or portion) of the regular futures contract. The mini counterpart makes trading the index more affordable to individual investors and hence increase liquidity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510", "text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d238ec6fd530336220b4cc773858845b", "text": "\"Regarding SPY: \"\"One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.\"\" (source) These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: \"\"The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.\"\" (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me. I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart. They lie pretty much on top of one another. The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step. There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9cfa352ce07f9aa89d06d2a710373e", "text": "I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9c3282d31b33acecbd05c2522be7f78", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7", "text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9ecd68f4ec88295c0d224e8fd7760595	What is the difference between a stop order and a stop limit order?	[ { "docid": "d2fc2515b51b4b2bbb2d49c8f7ca2e87", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13d405f87b222d8e581eb027e754892", "text": "\"An attempt at a simple answer for the normal investor: A normal investor buys stock then later sells that stock. (This is known as \"\"going long\"\", as opposed to \"\"going short\"\"). For the normal investor, a stop order (of either kind) is only used when selling. A stop-loss sell order (or stop sell) is used to sell your stock when it has fallen too much in price, and you don't want to suffer more losses. If the stock is at $50, you could enter a stop sell at $40, which means if the stock ever falls to $40 or lower, your stock will be sold at whatever price is available (e.g. $35). A stop-loss limit sell order (or stop limit sell) is the same, except you are also saying \"\"but don't sell for less than my limit price\"\". So you can enter a stop limit sell at $40 with a limit of $39, meaning that if the stock falls to $40, you will then have a limit order in effect to sell the stock at $39 or higher. Thus your stock will never be sold at $35 or any value below $39, but of course, if the stock falls fast from $40 to $35, your limit sell at $39 will not be done and you will be left still owning the stock (worth at that moment $35, say).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f47dd54afc18d54b9d4d6befccbf9e16", "text": "A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b91f27e36696c9822c4fee74730f9f53", "text": "Probing for hidden limit orders usually involves sending the orders and then cancelling them before they get filled if they don't get filled. With trades actually going through multiple times for small amounts it looks more like a VWAP strategy where the trader is feeding small volumes into the market as part of a larger trade trying to minimize average cost. It could be probing but without seeing the orders and any cancels it would be difficult to tell. edit: I just had another thought; it could possibly be a market maker unwinding a bad position caused by other trading. Sometimes they drip trades into the market to prevent themselves from hitting big orders etc. that might move back against them. This is probably not right but is just another thought. source: I work for an organization that provides monitoring for these things to many large trading organizations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f60d7f81daf86efdfc0766e558a22797", "text": "\"Your logic breaks down because you assume that you are the only market participant on your side of the book and that the participant on the other side of the book has entered a market order. Here's what mostly happens: Large banks and brokerages trading with their own money (we call it proprietary or \"\"prop\"\" trading) will have a number of limit (and other, more exotic) orders sitting on both sides of the trading book waiting to buy or sell at a price that they feel is advantageous. Some of these orders will have sat on the book for many months if not years. These alone are likely to prevent your limit orders executing as they are older so will be hit first even if they aren't at a better price. On more liquid stocks there will also be a number of participants entering market orders on both sides of the book whose orders are matched up before limit orders are matched with any market orders. This means that pairing of market orders, at a better price, will prevent your limit order executing. In many markets high frequency traders looking for arbitrage opportunities (for example) will enter a few thousand orders a minute, some of these will be limit orders just off touch, others will be market orders to be immediately executed. The likelihood that your limit order, being as it is posited way off touch, is hit with all those traders about is minimal. On less liquid stocks there are market makers (large institutional traders) who effectively set the bid and offer prices by being willing to provide liquidity and fill the market orders at a temporary loss to themselves and will, in most cases, have limit orders set to provide this liquidity that will be close to touch. They are paid to do this by the exchange and inter-dealer brokers through their fees structure. They will fill the market orders that would hit your limit if they think that it would provide more liquidity in such a way that it fulfils their obligations. Only if there are no other participants looking to trade on the instrument at a better price than your limit (which, of course they can see unless you enter it into a dark pool) AND there is a market order on the opposite side of the book will your limit order be instantaneously be hit, executed, and move the market price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dd61f4b88dc34661b578a4696c6a5b5", "text": "\"After learning about things that happened in the \"\"flash crash\"\" I always use limit orders. In an extremely rare instance if you place a market order when there is a some glitch, for example some large trader adds a zero at the end of their volume, you could get an awful price. If I want to buy at the market price, I just set the limit about 1% above the market price. If I want to sell, I set the limit 1% below the market price. I should point out that your trade is not executed at the limit price. If your limit price on a buy order is higher than the lowest offer, you still get filled at the lowest offer. If before your order is submitted someone fills all offers up to your limit price, you will get your limit price. If someone, perhaps by accident, fills all orders up to twice your limit price, you won't end up making the purchase. I have executed many purchases this way and never been filled at my limit price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87a5f0d18bc2cb7e78e815104cdd5230", "text": "TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69003ef4b8e5329aecf0172a01c19054", "text": "Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84434322484e6ec1298d53c4d304f4a4", "text": "The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f3c534c3679bc20aad8e5a3dbfb959", "text": "\"Correcting Keith's answer (you should have read about these details in the terms and conditions of your bank/broker): Entrustment orders are like a \"\"soft\"\" limit order and meaningless without a validity (which is typically between 1 and 5 days). If you buy silver at an entrustment price above market price, say x when the market offer is m, then parts of your order will likely be filled at the market price. For the remaining quantity there is now a limit, the bank/broker might fill your order over the next 5 days (or however long the validity is) at various prices, such that the overall average price does not exceed x. This is different to a limit order, as it allows the bank/broker to (partially) buy silver at higher prices than x as long as the overall averages is x or less. In a limit set-up you might be (partially) filled at market prices first, but if the market moves above x the bank/broker will not fill any remaining quantities of your order, so you might end up (after a day or 5 days) with a partially filled order. Also note that an entrustment price below the market price and with a short enough validity behaves like a limit price. The 4th order type is sort of an opposite-side limit price: A stop-buy means buy when the market offer quote goes above a certain price, a stop-sell means sell when the market bid quote goes below a certain price. Paired with the entrusment principle, this might mean that you buy/sell on average above/below the price you give. I don't know how big your orders are or will be but always keep in mind that not all of your order might be filled immediately, a so-called partial fill. This is particularly noteworthy when you're in a pro-rata market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1279b9f19d3f34f064ed3d1e0512b56", "text": "Depending on your strategy, it could be though there is also something to be said for what kind of order are you placing: Market, limit or otherwise? Something else to consider is whether or not there is some major news that could cause the stock/ETF to gap at the open. For example, if a company announces strong earnings then it is possible for the stock to open higher than it did the previous day and so a market order may not to take into account that the stock may jump a bit compared to the previous close. Limit orders can be useful to put a cap on how much you'll pay for a stock though the key would be to factor this into your strategy of when do you buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a", "text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d15ac36ec6dd0a7344427933d0cfe0b2", "text": "\"The SEC reference document (PDF) explains order types in more detail. A fill-or-kill order is neither a market order nor a limit order; instead it's something in between. A market order asks to be filled at the best available price, whatever that price might be when the order gets to the exchange. Additionally, if there are not enough counterparties to fill the order at the best available price, then part of the order may be filled at a worse price. This all happens more or less immediately; there's no way to cancel it once it has been placed. A limit order asks to be filled at a particular price, and if no counterparties want to trade at that price right now, then the order will just sit around all day waiting for someone to agree on the price; it can be canceled at any time. A fill-or-kill order asks to be filled at a particular price (like a limit order), but if that price or a better one is not currently available then the order is immediately canceled. It does not accept a worse price (the way a market order does), nor does it sit around waiting (the way a limit order does). Since the exchange computes whether to \"\"fill\"\" or \"\"kill\"\" the order as soon as it is arrives, there's also no way to cancel it (like a market order).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e96cd274fba81dbc2091ded7359dabed", "text": "When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac69142a86ecb34f05fac44c4c87b143", "text": "The purpose of a market order is to guarantee that your order gets filled. If you try to place a limit order at the bid or ask, by the time you enter your order the price might have moved and you might need to keep amending your limit order in order to buy or sell, and as such you start chasing the market. A market order will guarantee your order gets executed. Also, an important point to consider, is that market orders are often used in combination with other orders such as conditional orders. For example if you have a stop loss (conditional order) set at say 10% below your buy price, you might want to use a market order to make sure your order gets executed if the price drops 10% and your stop loss gets triggered, making sure that you get out of the stock instead of being stuck with a limit order 10% below your buy price whilst the stock keeps falling further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e913f8786ca00529c4ef8630f1710b33", "text": "\"There needs to be a buyer of the shares you are offering. There are a lot of feature rich options for buying and selling. I don't understand them all in depth, but for example on TD Ameritrade here are some of the order types \"\"Limit\"\", \"\"Market\"\", \"\"Stop Market\"\", \"\"Stop Limit\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop %\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop $\"\". This web page will explain the different order types https://invest.ameritrade.com/cgi-bin/apps/u/PLoad?pagename=tutorial/orderTypes/overview.html Stock with a higher volume will allow your trade to execute faster, since there are more frequent trades than stocks with lower volume. (UPDATE: More specifically, not more frequent trades, but more shares changing hands.) I'm a bit of a noob myself, but that's what I understand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a484b5eb4efb839e85833035c389844", "text": "\"What you are saying is a very valid concern. After the flash crash many institutions in the US replaced \"\"true market orders\"\" (where tag 40=1 and has no price) with deep in the money limit orders under the hood, after the CFTC-SEC joint advisory commission raised concerns about the use of market orders in the case of large HFT traders, and concerns on the lack of liquidity that caused market orders that found no limit orders to execute on the other side of the trade, driving the prices of blue chip stocks into the pennies. We also applaud the CFTC requesting comment regarding whether it is appropriate to restrict large order execution design that results in disruptive trading. In particular, we believe there are questions whether it is ever appropriate to permit large order algorithms that employ unlimited use of market orders or that permit executions at prices which are a dramatic percentage below the present market price without a pause for human review So although you still see a market order on the front end, it is transformed to a very aggressive limit in the back end. However, doing this change manually, by selling at price 0 or buying at 9999 may backfire since it may trigger fat finger checks and prevent your order from reaching the market. For example BATS Exchange rejects orders that are priced too aggressively and don't comply with the range of valid prices. If you want your trade to execute right now and you are willing to take slippage in order to get fast execution, sending a market order is still the best alternative.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d60bf7a675e257410a0c399585d1aad1	What rules govern when a new option series is issued?	[ { "docid": "324e7f7b3a5ef459159f6ff8b426ab0f", "text": "The CBOE Rule Book, Section 5.5 explains exactly what programmes are available, how and when they will start listing and expire. The super-concise summary is: It's a per-underlying decision process, though there's some rules that may provide you with a minimum set of options (e.g. the quarterly programme on highly capitalised stocks trading for more than $75, etc.) For greater detail, for better or worse, you will have to scan the New Listings service regularly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "386190460de32b5e310c3a1d749f95e6", "text": "\"Without researching the securities in question I couldn't tell you which cycle each is in, but your answer is that they have different expiration cycles. The following definition is from the CBOE website; \"\"Expiration cycle An expiration cycle relates to the dates on which options on a particular underlying security expire. A given option, other than LEAPS®, will be assigned to one of three cycles, the January cycle, the February cycle or the March cycle.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f9b021ef7bb5d287f2df29d74a2bf88f", "text": "For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14172702394ab119849c153d7c243981", "text": "The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053", "text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "705ee9b2dcdf79ccdb72df415ee392af", "text": "thanks. I have real time quotes, but in the contest, if you put in a market order the trade might happen at the delayed quote price and not the real time price. Does anyone know at which price it will trade, delayed or real time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8057d06cbcb766b7211eb29e90b52746", "text": "This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45647bd5c16b69730e046f75a6a74533", "text": "Link only answers aren't good, but the list is pretty long. It's a moving target, the requirement change based on a number of criteria. It usually jumps to force you to sell when you hold a losing position, or when your commodity is about to skyrocket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f719c01ac03e037a88ca3dd067d103db", "text": "This depends on the stock exchange in question. Generally if you modify an existing order [including GTC], these are internally treated as Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on the action, you may lose the time priority position and a new position would get assigned. More here. (f) Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order may change priority position as follows: (1) If the price is changed, the changed side loses position and is placed in a priority position behind all orders of the same type (i.e., customer or non-customer) at the same price. (2) If one side's quantity is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. (3) If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side retains its priority position. (4) If the quantity of one side is increased, that side loses its priority position and is placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd998359fb000bcb3b812061132ec65b", "text": "http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a066c38b2279b858bf2dd9cf934636d0", "text": "You can't know. It's not like every stock has options traded on it, so until you either see the options listed or a company announcement that option will trade on a certain date, there's no way to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae3bee0c5c32862b5c63bd0a18a24aa2", "text": "\"The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone. Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying. Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it. For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be \"\"cash settled\"\" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash. Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement. Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset. It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. \"\"Underlying\"\" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "748bfbe778b2501fbeda326a35e22cb1", "text": "\"You can call CBOE and tell them you want that series or a particular contract. And this has nothing to do with FLEX. Tell them there is demand for it, if they ask who you are, DONT SAY YOU ARE A RETAIL INVESTOR, the contracts will be in the option chain the next day. I have done this plenty of times. The CBOE does not care and are only limited by OCC and the SEC, but the CBOE will trade and list anything if you can think of it, and convince them that \"\"some people want to trade it\"\" or that \"\"it has benefits for hedging\"\" I've gotten 50 cent strike prices on stocks under $5 , I've gotten additional LEAPS and far dated options traded, I've gotten entire large chains created. I also have been with prop shops before, so I could technically say I was a professional trader. But since you are using IB and are paying for data feeds, you can easily spin that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b", "text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d3024badcf485a7f35871a15bc54bf9", "text": "\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e01ecd127956459cee7b71abf819ac75", "text": "\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e33ac1377a724dbd538bd085daa0af80	Historical share price at exact day and time	[ { "docid": "681a68e3b9bb0ed1f7c21754b288d44c", "text": "On 2012/05/18 at 15:34:00 UTC (11:34:00 EDT) FB was in chaos mode. The most recent public US trade at that moment was at $40.94, but in the next one second (i.e. before the clock hit 15:34:01) there were several dozen trades as low as $40.76 and as high as $41.00. On 2012/05/30 at 17:21:00 UTC (13:21:00 EDT) the most recent public US trade for FB was at $28.28.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c139204ef8db6cebd5386f5e6f653212", "text": "You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce74473919d8ee1c40037ea199392734", "text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "61de25b75f779fd3addc7f1515b344a4", "text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775", "text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37837d478e342d10d0f293af36a70417", "text": "FreeStockCharts.com keeps some intra-day trading history. You have to create an account to look up individual stocks. Once you create a free account you can get intra-day trading history for the last month (Hourly for past month, 15 minutes for past week, 1 minute for past day). Going back past one month and it only keeps daily close history. Here is Family Dollary's (FDO) hourly intra-day chart for the past month:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de242c20e4e0b92003730a296c3ef71c", "text": "The difference is that Yahoo is showing the unadjusted price that the security traded for on that date, while google is adjusting for price splits. This means that Google is showing how much you would have had to pay to get what is now one share. Since 1979, JNJ has split 3-for-1 once, and 2-for-1 four times. 3x2x2x2x2 = 48. If you bought 1 share at that time, you would now have 48 shares today. Yahoo is showing a price of $66 for what was then 1 share. $66/48 = 1.375, which Google rounds to 1.38. You can see this if you get the prices from May 14-21, 1981. The stock split 3-for-1, and the price dropped from 108 to 36.38. Yahoo's adjusted close column has not been accurate since they re-wrote the Finance website. It now just represents the closing price. The other relevant field on Yahoo is the Adj. Close. This adjusts for splits, but also adjusts for dividends. Hence why this doesn't match either the Google or Yahoo numbers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "829e686278a4a68bc87296349e46fb35", "text": "The correct p/e for bp.l is 5.80. Bp.l is on the London stock exchange and prices are in local currency. The share price of 493 is reported in pence (not dollars). The EPS is reported in pounds. Using .85 pounds = 85 pence, you calculate the EPS as follows: 493.40/85 = 5.80 PE Yahoo totally screwed up. They converted the .85 pounds into US dollars ($1.34) but didn't convert the 493 pence. By using the 493 as dollars, they got 493.9/1.34 = 368 pe! Notice that Yahoo reports the American Depository Shares (symbol 'BP') with an EPS of $8.06. That correctly reflects that there are 6 shares of BP.l per ADS (1.34 * 6 = 8.04). But why is the share price listed at $46.69? Well... 493 GBp (pence) = 4.93 pounds 4.93 pounds = 7.73 USD 7.73 USD * 6 shares per ADS = 46.38 USD", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eeeb700522713da024781f45893656f", "text": "Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST** trades but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3738d4730492b2c16c3e0de5fa4b797b", "text": "You have to look at the real price of the share to calculate the value of the spread. 42$ at the start, 46$ at the end. Think of it this way: When price was 42$ the call 45$ was out of the money, worth 100$ of time value only=100 the call 40$ was in the money and worth 200$ of intrinsic + 100 time value=300 the difference was 200$ Now that price is 46$ the call 45$ is worth 100$ in the money, real or intrinsic value the call 40$ is worth 600$ in the money, real or intrinsic value the difference is 500$ NOTE: 1. Commission fees are not included. 2. Time value of 100$ on both calls when price is 42$ is incorrect and for teaching purpose only.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc995ec5e7c0691a5351985999c81cc2", "text": "For stock splits, let's say stock XYZ closed at 100 on February 5. Then on February 6, it undergoes a 2-for-1 split and closes the day at 51. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 51 on Feb 6, but all of the closing prices for the previous days will be divided by 2. So for Feb 5, it will say the closing price was 50 instead of 100. For dividends, let's say stock ABC closed at 200 on December 18. Then on December 19, the stock increases in price by $2 but it pays out a $1 dividend. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 200 on Dec 18 and 201 on Dec 19. Yahoo adjusts the closing price for Dec 19 to factor in the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c91dbcb174171eab32c85abaddec8f3", "text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "366110afc6c37433dbbd7d11fa1dd8a6", "text": "If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d21510e020a4614e78e632825b4328fa", "text": "It does sometimes open one day the same as it closed the previous day. Take a look at ESCA, it closed October 29th at 4.50, at opened November 1st at 4.50. It's more likely to change prices overnight than it is between two successive ticks during the day, because a lot more time passes, in which news can come out, and in which people can reevaluate the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9539f48978a7abd2d6b7fa176ea6f1c2", "text": "TdAmeritrade offers this service for free using 3rd party company markit. From markit's site, below is their guarantee. http://www.markit.com/product/markit-on-demand Markit On Demand delivers an average of two million alerts per day through various technology platforms and via multiple channels, including email, instant messages, wireless, RSS and Facebook. Investors can subscribe to their alerts of choice, and Markit On Demand guarantees that they will receive an alert within five minutes of the event trigger for all price and volume alerts", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c", "text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aff1cd033ebf357cc6d08f7b3abbcab1", "text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
38c8ca85307c3a8831981913203b214b	Is selling put options an advisable strategy for a retiree to generate stable income?	[ { "docid": "cacd6db4295749b134fef57b9d3947b0", "text": "No. In good years, the income seems free. In a down year, particularly a bad one, the investor will be subject to large losses that will prove the strategy a bad one. On the other hand, one often hears of the strategy of selling puts on stock you would like to own. If the stock rises, you keep the premium, if it drops, you own it at a bit of a discount from that starting point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4215d59595db6fef019e68352fc63517", "text": "\"This is a really bad idea. You are asking to be forced to pay for something at a time when you most likely NOT want to buy it. Why? There is no stability (much less any degree of predictability) to give up the right to control when and for how much you would be willing to own the S&P500. Just don't do it.....\"\"generate stable income\"\" and \"\"selling puts\"\" is an oxymoron. ===retired investment advisor\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e95b8558db9ce9f9fa34c465a4df46b", "text": "I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis. I make 15 % plus per year from the puts. Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do. Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example: I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago. I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20. Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls. Price is now at 6.25. Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls. So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800. I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a52eb31913a2aea4d3f32967b290ca", "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.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecbb38a40d15f158007fdd49127c49bb", "text": "As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc. Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it. You are not able to replace those savings. The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation. Do random odd jobs. Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something. Keep this money separate from your retirement savings. Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market. Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading. You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book. If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83833c27853a9f356261bd0f87eb66d7", "text": "Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3a5556c65644a684570337fc538784f", "text": "Yes -- If you are prepared to own the stock and have the cash to buy it, it can be a good way to generate income. The downside is really no more than buying a stock and it goes down -- which can happen to any investment -- and you have the premium of the put. Just don't do it on any stock you would not buy outright. To the posters who say it's a bad idea, I would like some more info on why they think that. It's not more bad idea than any investment. Yes it has risk, but so does buying stocks in general, buying dividend stocks etc and since most options expire worthless the odds are more in your favor selling puts.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f98e2c40271286a1f613521f95a2ab21", "text": "Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6624eb2ad2488e72f86201f096a0e884", "text": "You are probably right that using a traditional buy and hold strategy on common equities or funds is very unlikely to generate the types of returns that would make you a millionaire in short order. However, that doesn't mean it isn't possible. You just have to accept a more risk to become eligible for such incredible returns that you'd need to do that. And by more risk I mean a LOT more risk, which is more likely to put you in the poorhouse than a mansion. Mostly we are talking about highly speculative investments like commodities and real estate. However, if you are looking for potential to make (or more likely lose) huge amounts of money in the stock market without a very large cache of cash. Options give you much more leverage than just buying a stock outright. That is, by buying option contracts you can get a much larger return on a small movement in the stock price compared to what you would get for the same investment if you bought the stock directly. Of course, you take on additional risk. A normal long position on a stock is very unlikely to cause you to lose your entire investment, whereas if the stock doesn't move far enough and in the right direction, you will lose your entire investment in option contracts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a0149cc2f846557283e56fc4af26615", "text": "\"Exactly. I'll \"\"retire\"\" from teaching in two years and will be given the chance to take half of my retirement in one lump sum payment and take home $1,000 a month, or take nothing and bring home 2,000 a month. The other thing to remember is the 30% tax payment that next April. That's tough. This looks like a no-brainer because in just seven years, I'd eclipse the cash out. However, I might do it because I'll take the money and possibly pay off a rental home. With a rental, I'll be able to raise the rent if inflation kicks in. Of course, if deflation continues, that might be a bad move. The thing is, I'll be able to decide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e155a7538f8822b59bcea7d7e2f5090d", "text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "524a107fb5d13c11550c4082a928b284", "text": "I think a larger issue is that you're trying to do market timing. Whether you had a large or small amount of money to invest, no one wants to put the money in to watch it go down. You can't really predict if prices in a market or security will go up in six months (in which case you want to put all your cash in now), of if it will go down (in which case you'd want to wait until the bottom), or if it will skitter around (in which case you'd want to only buy at the bottoms). Of course, if you're magic enough to nail all of those market conditions, you're a master finance trader and will quickly make billions. If you're really concerned with protecting your money and want to take some long positions, I'd look into some put options. You'll of course pay the fees for those put options, but they'll protect your downside. Much of this depends on your time horizon: at the age of 35, someone can expect to see ~6 more recessions and perhaps ~30 more market corrections before retirement. With that big of a time range, it's best to avoid micro-optimizing since that tends to hurt your performance overall (because you won't be able to time the market correctly most of the time). One thing that's somewhat reasonable, if you have the stomach for it, is to not buy at somewhat-obvious market highs and wait for corrections. This isn't fool proof by any means, but as an example many people realized that US equities basically were on a ~5 year up run by December 2014. Many people cashed out those positions, expecting that a correction would be due. And around late summer of 2015, that correction came. For those with patience, they made ~15% with a few mouse clicks. Of course many others would have been waiting for that correction since 2010 and missed out on the market increases. Boiled down:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c93bcfadf72babd57eae98f63c332b0a", "text": "That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b21e111173e3ecdcd7780e47437aa2b", "text": "\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04cfc11786b1d6c8709679a6c244060f", "text": "Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eda4f865be43a29f1fffcd2bc0dd7ade", "text": "I think it depends on your broker. Some brokers will not try to auto exercise in the money options. Others will try to do the exercise it if you have available funds. Your best bet, if find yourself in that situation, is to sell the option on the open market the day of or slightly before expiration. Put it on your calendar and don't forget, you could loose your profits. @#2 Its in the best interest of your broker to exercise because they get a commission. I think they are used to this situation where there is a lack of funds. Its not like bouncing a check. You will need to check with your broker on this. @#3 I think many or most options traders never intend on buying the underling stock. Therefore no, they do not always make sure there is enough funds to buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eefe526e99c585f680907b8039439560", "text": "Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d8b34920de21050fcb63a2f13c75a62", "text": "\"I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the \"\"safe\"\" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common. Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2328833836397e7b0dd33404beb1c97f", "text": "You're correct in your implied point: Selling a cash secured put has less risk (in terms of both volatility and maximum loss) than buying the security outright. However, many brokerages don't allow cash-secured put writing in IRA accounts. There are three reasons this tends to be the case:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3539d10c4d9b8ee4cb6d011696498707", "text": "If you have your long positions established and are investing responsibly (assuming you know the risks and can accept them), the next step IMO is typically learning hedging - using options or option strategies to solidify positions. Collars (zero cost) and put options are a good place to start your education and they can be put to use to both speculate (what you are effectively doing with short-position trading) or long-term oriented edging. Day trading equites can be lucrative but it is a difficult game to play - learning options (while more complex on speculation) can provide opportunities to solidify positions. Options trading is difficult grounds. I just think the payoff long term to knowing options is much greater than day-trading tactics (because of versatility)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "763dca18472ae2314ce65c377eb644a0", "text": "One advantage of paying down your primary residence is that you can refinance it later for 10-15 years when the balance is low. Refinancing a rental is much harder and interest rates are often higher for investors. This also assumes that you can refinance for a lower rate in the nearest future. The question is really which would you rather sell if you suddenly need the money? I have rental properties and i'd rather move myself, than sell the investments (because they are income generating unlike my own home). So in your case i'd pay off primary residence especially since the interest is already higher on it (would be a harder decision if it was lower)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
87c31320cb174ad61efbd8ced0f9829b	Why do investors buy stock that had appreciated?	[ { "docid": "6884f13240f4d66b59c3a1a0f293a6df", "text": "For the same reason you wanted it when you bought it. No-one guarantees that you'll be able to sell the stock you hold, and in fact many people get stuck with stocks they'd like to sell, but no-one is buying. But if investors think there's a profit potential that is not exhausted yet - they'll want to buy the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3b96e44e018d120c089366b8fc93b7b", "text": "People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5", "text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f8b3c303d40b26ff06e6d1cb9ab5449", "text": "From an amateur: Prices aren't entirely rational - they float, and the day to day prices of stock are an excellent example of this. So how would you assign an appropriate value to it? There is a logical minimum, the scrap value of the assets and the cash on hand. However, that doesn't take into account the expectations for growth people have for that company. If everyone thought a $100 mil company was going to be worth $200 mil by the end of next year, they'd still be willing to pay at a $150 mil price point now. That said, the market is big enough that it's easy enough to find someone who has those growth expectations. They still expect it to be worth more in the future, and they'll buy it now. And if no one buys at that price point, that's when prices start to fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b64c6af2f5cde4e5b51b5d226cb524b", "text": "A few reasons. First, it's hard to buy a stock that has never gone up, and isn't necessarily wise to do so. Even if you just wait for a stock go down, what if you wait and it goes up two dollars, then drops 10 cents? Has it gone up or down? When should you buy it? In general, your idea is correct, the higher the price the less you should want the stock. But in some sense, the past price is irrelevant, you can't buy it at the past price. You should buy it now if it's the best option now. And that is based on your assessment of whether it's future prospects are worth the current price (and in fact enough worth enough to make buying the stock the best economic decision you can currently make). Finally, the price may have gone up for a reason. The company may have done something, or some information about the company may have become known, that affects it's future prospects. That might make it a better deal, perhaps even better than it was before the price increase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883", "text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5e10e05a5d3f9795eda9fc21b773d7f", "text": "\"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \"\"Buy high, sell higher.\"\" A stock that has \"\"just appreciated\"\" is \"\"in motion.\"\" That is a \"\"promise\"\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d68fc2a7722d857c5ffbe80888669754", "text": "\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5939f1d283af184f432800ab3ed5f171", "text": "Another benefit of holding shares longer was just pointed out in another question: donating appreciated shares to a nonprofit may avoid the capital gains tax on those shares, which is a bigger savings the more those shares have gone up since purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e4bd07839471e3acbee1f3eefb1c5f3", "text": "I agree with this. I like to buy stocks that are priced low according to value investing principles but set limits to sell if the stock happens to get priced at a point that exceeds X% annualized return, for instance 15% or 30% depending on preference. If the price goes up, I cash out and find the next best value stock and repeat. If the price does not go up, then I hold it which is fine because I only buy what I'm comfortable with holding for the long term. I tend to prefer stocks that have a dividend yield in the 2-6% range so I can keep earning a return. Also I too like the look of MCD. GE looks good as well, from this perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "729c5aedd5093e6ba46e0c0a70f6ab49", "text": "The stock market in general likes monetary easing. With lower interest rates and easy cheap money freely available, companies can borrow at reduced cost thus improving profits. As profits increase share prices generally follow. So as John Benson said Quantitative Easing usually has a positive effect on stocks. The recent negativity in the stock markets was partly due to the possibility of QE ending and interest rates being raised in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96a2942dfa624446406a128889324e34", "text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81ce9db9c61314068fbcd22e5b43680a", "text": "Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b85c5d4437839baccbbc65186d8eb96", "text": "If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be15acb6b240661d6447a5c078a6934", "text": "The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614bee481aefd30f69b6c7aa960045b5", "text": "Amazon is stuffed full of dumb money. People who like the company and therefore assume it must be a good investment. Nothing about an investment makes sense when the PE is 100. If you buy something like that you must assume 8% moves will happen pretty frequently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59f4442413d1763b8006e17302d92bb", "text": "The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0575e37ec55ce1ee8435c931fd40b798", "text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3a98c4cdebde920a4f48f427c33fca1", "text": "Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cd844e8421c007f49bdb04b4c440583", "text": "Have the reasons you originally purchased the stock changed? Is the company still sound? Does the company have a new competitor? Has the company changed the way they operate? If the company is the same, except for stock price, why would you change your mind on the company now? ESPECIALLY if the company has not changed, -- but only other people's PERCEPTION of the company, then your original reasons for buying it are still valid. In fact, if you are not a day-trader, then this COMPANY JUST WENT ON SALE and you should buy more. If you are a day trader, then you do care about the herd's perception of value (not true value) and you should sell. DAY TRADER = SELL BUY AND HOLD (WITH INTELLIGENT RESEARCH) = BUY MORE", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b8c9a3eaebd9b64a27f2e0121d7d7652	Is stock in a company considered a good or a service, or something else?	[ { "docid": "18e5ae8298e346338d69d4bfd5e80117", "text": "Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33c4560b76832e7d47039ea8fd60d3ce", "text": "Facebook the company is probably better understood as a capital good - it is a collection of software and servers and a well-known brand name with a snazzy network effect under reasonably competent corporate governance that can produce final goods and services (mostly services) that actually have value. A share of Facebook stock is a share of ownership in that capital. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_good which makes some concessions for the difference between capital goods and capital services, so it's kind of a fuzzy thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f465e525fba997b5f58d65cd0ab459f0", "text": "Stock is ownership. And whether the thing you own is a good or service irrelevant. The ownership itself is all that matters. Ownership = service ??? Ownership = good ??? Maybe the problem is your trying to fit a verb into a noun-based categories?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "41d5bfb7a9d47b8e32ca6736772ca243", "text": "\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some don't. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You do have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6828c8aac1235a11ea839878bf006177", "text": "\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1179f9ecef6167221f32226a1cb8a6", "text": "Excellent question for a six year old! Actually, a good question for a 20 year old! One explanation is a bit more complicated. Your son thinks that after the Christmas season the company is worth more. For example, they might have turned $10 million of goods into $20 million of cash, which increases their assets by $10 million and is surely a good thing. However, that's not the whole picture: Before the Christmas season, we have a company with $10 million of goods and the Christmas season just ahead, while afterwards we have a company with $20 million cash and nine months of slow sales ahead. Let's say your son gets $10 pocket money every Sunday at 11am. Five minutes to 11 he has one dollar in his pocket. Five minutes past 11 he has 11 dollars in his pocket. Is he richer now? Not really, because every minute he gets a bit closer to his pocket money, and five past eleven he is again almost a week away from the next pocket money On the other hand... on Monday, he loses his wallet with $10 inside - he is now $10 poorer. Or his neighbour unexpectedly offers him to wash his car for $10 and he does it - he is now $10 richer. So if the company got robbed in August with all stock gone, no insurance, but time to buy new stock for the season, they lose $10 million, the company is worth $10 million less, and the share price drops. If they get robbed just before Christmas sales start, they don't make the $20 million sales, so they are $10 million poorer, but they are $20 million behind where they should be - the company is worth $20 millions less, and the share price drops twice as much. On the other hand, if there is a totally unexpected craze for a new toy going on from April to June (and then it drops down), and they make $10 million unexpectedly, they are worth $10 million more. Expected $10 million profit = no increase in share price. Unexpected $10 million profit - increase in share price. Now the second, totally different explanation. The share price is not based on the value of the company, but on what people are willing to pay. Say it's November and I own 100 shares worth $10. If everyone knew they are worth $20 in January, I would hold on to my shares and not sell them for $10! It would be very hard to convince me to sell them for $19! If you could predict that the shares will be worth $20 in January, then they would be worth $20 now. The shareprice will not go up or down if something good or bad happens that everyone expects. It only goes up or down if something happens unexpectedly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d09fd123da8fdc790fbee54b044ccc79", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "635b2da07686ff2edc334ce3019a7d44", "text": "\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "216fb89e9f562ceb58dd1d07bd9fc3dc", "text": "all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e022d9aac9463e8ea086f50cd59a0e1", "text": "Doesn't matter what the product is, whether it's a tangible good or a service, a business is still a business and must be run as thus. If you don't run a hospital properly, as a business that provides a service, then that hospital is soon to be threatened with closure or state take-over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "764624b0e84789c70bc3f1b715a280c3", "text": "Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment. Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5612dcb81d25c948a71027db30822c3b", "text": "\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a4af6d5d949050b38d46a09f9238888", "text": "And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4000a40d44e3fe823985daf10c1d0a8", "text": "Stock valuation is a really sticky business, although they are ways to value it, it is somewhat subjective(expectations are calculated). But it will be at premium most likely, can't tell how much without any numbers.(wouldn't be able to tell with the numbers as well since i do not have any knowledge in the sector)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fad44c3ea1cacb905d17f2bf8d64e", "text": "Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b0a6de7bf0ba2094d7070be5d056716", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "061be53a5ccdf30b62fe64def74bd484", "text": "Typically one wants to see a credit score, just because you may have money in the bank and decent income does not mean your going to pay, there are plenty of people who have the money but simply refuse to cough it up. Credit is simply a relative way of seeing where one fits against another in a larger group, it shows that this person not only can pay, but does pay. While not having a credit history should make no difference, I can and hopefully easily posited above why it can be necessary to have one. Not all landlords will require a credit check, I was not required to give one, I did not have much credit to begin with, given that, I was forced to cough up a higher degree of a security deposit.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b4fad0d3f96e367d63d83e4010c1f834	Can I participate in trading Facebook shares on their IPO day from any brokerage?	[ { "docid": "70d42d9a31bd078424a995522a40fad8", "text": "Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available. However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC). The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO. You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market. This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'. So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches. Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind). Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want. However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning. Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f538fda1ade9cb16a4abd30c8e2019d", "text": "Yes. The real question is whether you should. You should consider your investment options, and take into the account that there's much more hype than value in many companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277a1ff72241f4c3dda8e6a7305a0d7", "text": "By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks. The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ffc8f0633f8b405fbcf04b373537fdbc", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5d52f458009e1d55a880e53e2925556", "text": "\"This functionality is widely available, not only on brokerage sites, but also financial management and even financial information sites. For instance, two of the latter are Google Finance and Yahoo Finance. If you are logged in, they let you create \"\"portfolios\"\" listing your stocks and, optionally, the size of your holdings in that stock (which you don't need if you are just \"\"watching\"\" a stock). Then you can visit the site at any time and see the current valuations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81321e54f9387eaf0cf434ad54384e54", "text": "Not going to happen for Facebook since there will be too much demand and the order will go to the top clients of the underwriting investment banks. In general though, if you wanted a piece of a smaller IPO you'd just have to get in touch with a broker whose investment banking department is on the underwriting syndicate (say Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney) since IPOs often have a percentage that they allocate to retail clients (i.e. you) as well as institutional (i.e. hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds etc.). The more in demand the IPO the harder it is to get a piece.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e57ff79bd0644de0ba3011a06b68c10", "text": "Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e1d0c6ec35cad5fe9aa6d894c55fef5", "text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8958b5c15f7245431cc66cdfeca66ed0", "text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8ce72dd840411671d84cc489a732c0c", "text": "\"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most IPOs that allows some people to \"\"flip them\"\" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d9303a97a7532a9f39858d68b75bf2a", "text": "Without knowing the specifics it is hard to give you a specific answer, but most likely the answer is no. If they limit the participation in the site to accredited investors, this is probably not something they are doing willingly, but rather imposed by regulators. Acredited investors have access to instruments that don't have the same level of regulatory protection & scrutiny as those offered to the general public, and are defined under Regulation D. Examples of such securities are 144A Shares, or hedgefunds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d55477a28427a28e14b8662c097c8ef", "text": "\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2041307b762fa5e48cadb6e57334b1bc", "text": "You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7080964ccd66e1d732a3cfb1e34b870", "text": "\"Price is current price per share, but you can buy fractional shares. Minimal investment is how later the first purchase of shares must be to make it worth their efforts to set up the account for you. How you manage it is up to you. You can buy or sell shares at any time, pretty much, though it may take a few days for the transaction to \"\"settle\"\" and take effect. You can do this via checks, or you can give the broker (or the investment house, if you are dealing directly with them as I do) permission to take money from or put money to your bank account when you tell them you want to buy or sell shares. You may be able to set up direct deposit; talk to your employer about that. Or you may be able to have your bank make a periodic transfer/purchase for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053", "text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9726e74175e398790e35f056a69a16cd", "text": "To clarify something: FB did not inflate their share price, Morgan Stanley did. Every company on the IPO wants a billion dollars a share, but thats not possible so they take what the market will give them, FB played their cards right. MS didn't disclose that their analysts (not auditors) changed their minds. For fun stuff: read up on ETF arbitrage with HFT, this kinda stuff happens everyday on a micro scale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec01e6ad07bd6f63d716dde54886fb4c", "text": "\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \"\"free online service.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088", "text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5b85fa5682fdd1e409137b2003e7b7a7	Starter Enterprising Investor	[ { "docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6", "text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d287276efebd0e3baca4ad450ce00b", "text": "I was starting at 16 (i'm from Russia). Just don't listen to anyone and work hard with your ideas (doesn't matter good or bad). After 2-3 years you gonna have huge skill set for make fortune. Mark and Bill was at your place and make it like I wrote. Doesn't repeat my mistakes plz. I was going to university and fell on love.... Huge mistakes. Just work hard and believe in your self.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33a18214048d00ec5c14fc9655f16b82", "text": "If you are an entrepreneur, and you are looking forward to strike on your own ( the very definition of entrepreneur) then I suggest that you don't invest in anything except your business and yourself. You will need all the money you have when you launch your business. There will be times when your revenue won't be able to cover your living costs, and that's when you need your cash. At that point of time, do you really want to have your cash tie up in stock market/property? Some more, instead of diverting your attention to learn how the stock market/property works, focus on your business. You will find that the reward is much, much greater. The annual stock market return is 7% to 15%. But the return from entrepreneurship can be many times higher than that. So make sure you go for the bigger prize, not the smaller gains. It's only when your business no longer requires your capital then you can try to find other means of investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78376c71017ce85c9868e6f3729b6df2", "text": "Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "762ab641a0efe27313282e4079dd8588", "text": "\"While you’re new or relatively new to this idea then the fitting idea is to perform a little research and primary get conversant in what’s possible with offshore investment opportunities. I couldn't agree more. A good way to begin this research would be to do an online search for an investment opportunity called \"\"Royal Siam Trust.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ed4fb03c9a393b737c5da1e8f0a6fe", "text": "No chance. First off, unless the company provides audited financials (and they don't from what I can tell), there is no way I'm tinkering with a bunch of small business owners. Transparency is a substantial part of investing and this actually exempts or excludes these companies, from what I can tell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611", "text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "659da29d0afdfceb9eed68503c466110", "text": "\"You could have some of the chaos and create a product for yourself, which is owned fully by you, where nobody would ever be able to fire you or go over your head or oust you or force you to sell. That's the beauty of bootstrapping. My essay was not anti-startup and it was not anti-fun-creative-chaos. It was anti-venture capital, anti-pipe dreams, anti-selling-yourself. My whole blog is pro-building-products because products as assets, which make money -- and the difference between a normal person with a job (even at a startup) and the truly rich is that the rich have assets and the normos just have time. I aim to be \"\"truly rich\"\" and not sell my time. Thus my 3-year journey into products. Thus my blog.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fe165a76689d7f7f386f408f9fcc577", "text": "I started a company that's in the process of trying to become an SEC approved funding portal as defined by this Act. That being said, I obviously think it was a good thing overall. It's going to be much easier for companies to raise money. However, I think it's also going to be much more difficult find good investments. There's a chance that it might fuel a bubble similar to the Dotcom bubble in the late 90's/early 00's. That's if it takes off. I have some doubts that it will really change the landscape a whole lot. Even though it's now legal, you still don't see startups, hedge funds, etc. soliciting investments. At least I don't. Some of the relaxing of SOX requirements is interesting, but I don't think that really does anything but just defer the inevitable. There are quite a few private companies that are already SOX compliant simply because if they go public or get purchased by a public company, that can be a big advantage. The increasing of shareholders of record from 500 to 2,000 is irrelevant really. One shareholder of record can sell portions of their interest to as many people as they want (See: Goldman Sachs and Facebook). Making equity investments in startups available to regular Joe's is a good thing overall. It allows the possibility that someone making $50k per year to invest in a company that could, in the long run, boost them up a tax bracket or two. The flipside of that is that I still believe most of the US to be financially illiterate. There's a possibility of abuse. The SEC is currently writing rules to try and stem that, but there will still be people who do it. Hopefully it's not too bad. Lifting the ban on general solicitation is, in general, a good thing. For startups I think this might be advantageous, but won't be used very much. Part of the reason startups choose the investors they do (if they're smart) is for what value that person or people bring to the table besides cash. If I'm a startup and I need some money, I'm giving up a portion of my baby to someone. I want to make sure that person is smart and on the same page with me. I'm not going to settle for just anyone. It's important to remember that even if that person has one share, they still get a vote and a say in how I run my company. TL;DR - Overall I think it's going to be good. It's not going to be quite as radical as most people think. There will be some abuses of the new laws and regs, but that comes with the territory.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc9e163be701e521007a05232e59cc0", "text": "I am not entirely sold on investing in start-up companies, but I really like the idea of crowdfunding investments. I've been an investor at [LendingClub](https://www.lendingclub.com/) for 10 months now and am quite happy so far. For those of you who don't know, Lending Club is where you can crowdfund consumer loans. I'm also very interested in [Solar Mosaic](https://solarmosaic.com/). Once their quiet period ends I am planning on investing in solar projects through them. Of course I'll want to see some data related to their risk and returns, but I love the idea of earning a return from funding solar projects. I think that crowdfunding allows you to invest in areas that are normally off-limits to those of us who aren't rich. At the very least these investments offer a nice source of portfolio diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83266596284f73cb8a10197cbc46f3f0", "text": "Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccdf1e5dd46c8433b4bc98d3814f4ea", "text": "We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4acb25e5b3c6f679fac607e6eabfdf5e", "text": "\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5016c34c05afaf7e3fc94492b8cdabf6	Is it beneficial to convert non-investment real estate to rental if I need to make major repairs? (USA/Missouri)	[ { "docid": "200f8c5f2b1d4a058debac7f16934960", "text": "\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2347fc4b54213466cdae612c35bfa55e", "text": "\"I don't have a direct answer for you, but here are some other things you might consider to help you decide on a course of action in addition to Joe's note about consulting a CPA... Get a couple contractors out to look the place over and give you some quotes on the work needed, most will do so for free, or a nominal fee. Everything about the extent and cost of repairs is complete guess work until you have some firm numbers. You might also consider getting an up-to-date appraisal, particularly if you can find someone willing to give you an \"\"after improvements\"\" estimate as well. The housing market has fluctuated a bunch in the last couple years, your current value may have shifted significantly from where you think it is if you haven't done one recently. You will definitely have to pay for this service, I would estimate around $500 based on one I got in St Louis a few months ago. You might also consider reaching out to a local property management company to find out where they think you would fall in the scope of the current rental market and what improvements they would recommend. You will probably want to be onsite to talk to any of the above people about the work they are proposing, and your intended goals, so figure some travel costs and time into your evaluation. As one of your noted concerns was the state of the roof, I can tell you that in St Louis County, and the spec sheet for most shingle manufacturers, you are limited to two layers of shingles, then the roof is supposed to be stripped and redone from the bare wood. Personally, I won't even do the second layer, I always go to bare wood and start over, if for no other reason than it gives me an opportunity to inspect the deck and deal with any minor problem areas before they become big problems. I don't know Greene County to know what the local code may be like, but odds are high that the shingle manufacture would not honor any warranty with this installation. Another potential gotcha that may be lurking out there is your ex may still have a lingering claim to the home if you go to sell it. I don't know the rules in Missouri off hand, but where I grew up (with family in the real estate and title insurance businesses) there was a law regarding homestead rights. If a spouse spent even one night in a property, they had an interest in it and an explicit waiver had to be signed to release said interest. Review your divorce settlement and/or contact your attorney to confirm your status in this regard. Also consider the potential of refinancing your mortgage to either reduce the payment, or get funds for the improvements/repairs. Final note, I understand wanting to help out a friend (I have done similar things more times than I can count), but seriously look at the situation and see if you can't get the rent or other compensation up to the level of the mortgage at least. You mentioned that you have belongings still on the property, what would a storage unit for said items cost? In terms of juggling the numbers you could potentially use that value as justification to adjust the friends rent as a caretaker fee without any issue. (Verify with your CPA) Talk to the friend and see if there are other parts of the job they would be willing and able to take on as consideration for the reduced rent (make sure you have at least a simple contract on any such agreement). Or if none of the above are sufficient to balance the numbers, see if they would be willing to take on an actual room mate to help make up the difference.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b22c2489d586e3c1cfc01bb3f21219c3", "text": "If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a3b5dba9f57e8cd65d2b20b9781823e", "text": "\"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (\"\"Grunderwerbssteuer\"\") and land registration fees (\"\"Grundbucheintrag\"\"). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (\"\"Hausverwalter\"\"). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security. However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google \"\"Mietrecht Eigenbedarf\"\" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "344e8d48ea5c65679b0e4dac91026193", "text": "\"Realtor.com gives the following list of \"\"best renovations for the money\"\" and they include ROI numbers: You can see that people generally get ~80-85% of their money back on home improvement projects. If the housing market is just red hot in your area, and you bought a house with some severe issues that caused the sale price to be significantly undervalued per square foot, then you're more likely to get more than average returns on your investment. If you manage to save a lot of money on the renovations (ie, inexpensive materials or you DIY and save on labor) then your costs will be lower and your ROI higher. You can see from the list above that the most profitable improvements tend to be kitchen, bath, windows, and adding additional living space. However, it only takes a few hours of watching HGTV to conclude that renovations often cost more than homeowners expect. This is often due to unexpected issues or costs that were not apparent before the work started.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2a5a0971e352bc083b87a6b8757baa0", "text": "A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b", "text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba", "text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c517ef7ba52c41d23492de2239036a19", "text": "Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run. Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs. It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement. I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1d1d789b00e121963c56aed1a1c0e25", "text": "When it comes to Real Estate, there are 2 school of thoughts: 1. People who swear that it's the one and best way to make lots of money with RE: flipping, fixer upper, leveraging, whatnot 2. People who don't believe people in #1 above. I belong to #2 with some addendum(s): * you can make a lot of money in Real Estate by becoming a RE Broker (but it's not for everyone) even better if you own a RE agency employing brokers (but it's not for everyone); it's like collecting tolls on the highway, no matter what, you collect a fee. * every portfolio should have a portion allocated to Real Estate, either directly or by means of a REIT. Alas most people who own a home are over-allocated in Real Estate * in some, and very few, parts of the USA one can make a lot of money by buying and managing directly small apartment complex to rent out; these are remote small urban settings, low prices for both buying and renting, but the ratio of price/rent is favorable. Run your own numbers and see if it's profitable enough *for you*.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11915ff3a99c1880ff5a2f373c1bb3d9", "text": "A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6474f9e233c80bd3d4a1c35ff0746bcd", "text": "Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86", "text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a436930fe8eeb4f0e75af5ae0460ec6", "text": "\"The best answer for you is going to depend completely on your financial goals. Do you want to be debt free? Are you comfortable with the risks of long-distance rentals? Do you have good resources to take care of any issues where the properties are at? You can't directly compare the returns of risky investments versus the risk-free \"\"return\"\" of paying off debt. The expected return of the property might be higher that the interest on the loan, but when you incorporate risk, there's a decent chance that you'll make less money on the property than you pay on the loan. Other things to consider: Another way to think about it is: If you did not have the debt or the houses, Would you borrow money at 4% (or whatever your student loan is at) to buy a rent house in Arizona?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86", "text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9f5db1855fefd4857a5cc47e7f16cc4", "text": "\"I have been a landlord in Texas for just over 3 years now. I still feel like a novice, but I will give you the benefit of my experience. If you are relying on rental properties for current income versus a long term return you are going to have to do a good job at shopping for bargains to get monthly cash flow versus equity growth that is locked up in the property until you sell it. If you want to pull a lot of cash out of a property on a regular basis you probably are going to have to get into flipping them, which is decidedly not passive investing. Also, it is easy to underestimate the expenses associated with rental properties. Texas is pretty landlord friendly legally, however it does have higher than usual property taxes, which will eat into your return. Also, you need to factor in maintenance, vacancy, tenant turnover costs, etc. It can add up to a lot more than you would expect. If you are handy and can do a lot of repairs yourself you can increase your return, but that makes it less of a passive investment. The two most common rules I have heard for initially evaluating whether an investment property is likely to be cash flow positive are the 1% and 50% rules. The 1% rule says the expected monthly rent needs to be 1% or greater of the purchase price of the house. So your hypothetical $150K/$10K scenario doesn't pass that test. Some people say this rule is 2% for new landlords, but in my experience you'd have to get lucky in Texas to find a house priced that competitively that didn't need a lot of work to get rents that high. The 50% rule says that the rent needs to be double your mortgage payment to account for expenses. You also have to factor in the hassle of dealing with tenants, the following are not going to happen when you own a mutual fund, but are almost inevitable if you are a landlord long enough: For whatever reason you have to go to court and evict a tenant. A tenant that probably lost their job, or had major medical issues. The nicest tenant you ever met with the cutest kids in the world that you are threatening to make homeless. Every fiber of your being wants to cut them some slack, but you have a mortgage to pay and can't set an expectation that paying the rent on time is a suggestion not a rule. or the tenant, who seemed nice at first, but now considers you \"\"the man\"\" decides to fight the eviction and won't move out. You have to go through a court process, then eventually get the Sheriff to come out and forcibly remove them from the property, which they are treating like crap because they are mad at you. All the while not paying rent or letting you re-let the place. The tenant isn't maintaining the lawn and the HOA is getting on your butt about it. Do you pay someone to mow the grass for them and then try to squeeze the money out of the tenant who \"\"never agreed to pay for that\"\"? You rent to a college kid who has never lived on their own and has adopted you as their new parent figure. \"\"The light in the closet went out, can you come replace the bulb?\"\" Tenants flat out lying to your face. \"\"Of course I don't have any pets that I didn't pay the deposit for!\"\" (Pics all over facebook of their kids playing with a dog in the \"\"pet-free\"\" house)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
084b67c81aae0acb1ae3af1f73a712c6	Evidence For/Against Real Estate Investing Vis-a-vis Investing in ETFs	[ { "docid": "9df8d0c8d093cd3767f3871e8c58682e", "text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "24b82d946ddcb53abe69edbe767f483b", "text": "\"> Asset prices are high and not matched by real world performance. See, I know a lot of people are saying this, but I'm not entirely sure this is true. Even if some tech stocks are \"\"artificially\"\" boosting the market to crazy levels, can you say it's not warranted? The potential for many are far beyond what we see today. I don't see the current tech stock boom being unable to fulfill like the 1990s boom, and subsequent bust. The infrastructure and logistics weren't there in 1999. They are now. Beyond tech, businesses are doing pretty well. Up and down, earnings reports are looking good. Stocks are high, but still somewhat based on real numbers. Same could be said for real estate. The demand is real, the prices are high, but it's based on demand. The danger is what we're missing, just like in 2008. Chances are, there is a fiction out there. Maybe the fiction is in these tech stocks. Maybe it is on mortgages again. I'm not seeing it. There were people prior to 2008 sounding alarm bells about the real estate market. I haven't seen the equivalent today. In fact, I've seen more people trying to figure out how the heck the next correction will come, and nobody really can answer it. At this rate, there might not be a \"\"built in\"\" cause, and might come externally like Trump going nuts and launching nukes, or another terrorist attack.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89ed67b5f0774d7905ab336c87cbb9a", "text": "REITs can be classified as equity, mortgage, or hybrid. A security that sells like a stock on the major exchanges and invests in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. Trades like equity but the underlying is a property ot mortgage. So you are investing in real estate but without directly dealing with it. So you wouldn't classify it as real estate. CD looks more like a bond.If you look at the terms and conditions they have many conditions as a bond i.e. callable, that is a very precious option for both the buyer and seller. Self occupied house - Yes an asset because it comes with liabilities. When you need to sell it you have to move out. You have to perform repairs to keep it in good condition. Foreign stock mutual fund - Classify it as Foreign stocks, for your own good. Investments in a foreign country aren't the same as in your own country. The foreign economy can go bust, the company may go bust and you would have limited options of recovering your money sitting at home and so on and so forth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "382cfb115f0b4a4d9cc4f7bfefcb26b1", "text": "\"There seems to be a common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns. What evidence exists for or against this? First off, even if the markets were entirely random there would be individual investors that would consistently beat the market throughout their lifetime entirely by luck. There are just so many people this is a statistical certainty. So let's talk about evidence of beating the market due to persistent skill. I should hedge by saying there isn't a lot of good data here as most understandably most individual investors don't give out their investment information but there are some ok datasets. There is weak evidence, for instance, that the best individual investors keep outperforming and interestingly that the trading of individual investors can predict future market movements. Though the evidence is more clear that individual investors make a lot of mistakes and that these winning portfolios are not from commonly available strategies and involve portfolios that are much riskier than most would recommend. Is there really no investment strategy that would make it likely for this investor to consistently outperform her benchmark? There are so, many, papers (many reasonable even) out there about how to outperform benchmarks (especially risk-adjusted basis). Not too mention some advisers with great track records and a sea of questionable websites. You can even copy most of what Buffet does if you want. Remember though that the average investor by definition makes the average \"\"market\"\" return and then pays fees on top of that. If there is a strategy out there that is obviously better than the market and a bunch of people start doing it, it quickly becomes expensive to do and becomes part the market. If there was a proven, easy to implement way to beat the market everyone would do it and it would be the market. So why is it that on this site or elsewhere, whenever an active trading strategy is discussed that potentially beats the market, there is always a claim that it probably won't work? To start with there are a large number of clearly bad ideas posed here and elsewhere. Sometimes though the ideas might be good and may even have a good chance to beat the market. Like so many of the portfolios that beat the market though and they add a lot of uncertainty and in particular, for this personal finance site, risk that the person will not be able to live comfortably in retirement. There is so much uncertainty in the market and that is why there will always be people that consistently outperform the market but at the same time why there will be few, if any, strategies that will outperform consistently with any certainty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f954722876bfa4acb9331c336341e5db", "text": "As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense. As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78b34ddb0cc670476868575472df6541", "text": "When on this topic, you'll often hear general rules of thumb. And, similar to the 'only buy stocks if you plan to hold more than X years' there are going to be periods where if you buy at a bottom right before the market turns up, you might be ahead just months after you buy. I'd say that if you buy right, below market, you're ahead the day you close. Edit - I maintain, and have Schiller providing supporting data) that real estate goes up with inflation in the long term, no more, no less. If the rise were perfectly smooth, correlated 100% month to month, you'd find it would take X years to break even to the costs of buying, commission and closing costs. If we call that cost about 8%, and inflation averages 3, it points to a 3 year holding period to break even. But, since real estate rises and falls in the short term, there are periods longer than 4 years where real estate lags, and very short periods where it rises faster than the costs involved. The buy vs rent is a layer right on top of this. If you happen upon a time when the rental market is tight, you may buy, see the house decline 10% in value, and when the math is done, actually be ahead of the guy that rented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fd1f453fdf50f3d43731985b8d1c9bb", "text": "Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bcc297d2ceaa81a2066b4adbf028eab", "text": "\"Other individuals answered how owning an REIT compares to an individual real estate investment, but did not answer your second question as readily, \"\"are REITs a good option to generate passive income for awhile?\"\". The \"\"awhile\"\" part is quite important in answering this question. If your intentions are to invest for a relatively short time period (say, 7 years or less), it may be especially advantageous to invest in a REIT. The foremost advantage comes from significantly lower transaction fees (stock/ETF trades are practically/potentially free today) compared to purchasing real estate, which involves inspection+titling fees/taxes/broker fees, which in a round-trip transaction (purchase and sale) would come to ~10%. The secondary advantage to owning a REIT is they are much more liquid than a property. If you wanted to sell your investment at a given point in time, you can easily log into your brokerage and execute your transaction, while liquidating an investment property will take time on market/potentially tossing tenants/fixing up place, etc. On the other hand, illiquid investments have generally yielded higher historical returns according to past research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "963343cd587bb4eead1e951bd5f258af", "text": "A change in implied volatility tells us something about what investors are thinking (or fearing) about the volatility going forward for the life of the associated option contracts (which may be short or long-lived). IV does a good job of summarizing the information available to investors, which includes information about the past and the present. However, whether these investor views actually translate into what happens in the future is a topic of debate in the finance literature--investors do not generally know the future--there are conflicting results available. There have been papers that show that implied volatility has predictive power in some situations, time periods, and horizons (though it is also biased) and other papers that show that it does not have statistically significant predictive power at all. The consensus last time I checked was that implied volatility is no worse than historical volatility (including methods that use trends in historical volatility to forecast where it is going) at predicting future volatility. Whether it is significantly better and whether either reliably predicts the future is something that is not agreed on. I take this lack of consensus as evidence that if it does predict future volatility, it does so poorly. Somewhat dated FAJ survey on the subject", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dadd997d194fe1f6e1022dffd87f315a", "text": "You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e430ddd30948b732b23e8f5e0955d71e", "text": "This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "787e561450535d93b98cac7b6f0088e2", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7dbd7dfee4ffffb36a5d23f70844204e	I am moving to a new city. How do I plan and prepare - financially - for the move?	[ { "docid": "12f6f30d4893c8cdb8769a6e56c5db0a", "text": "Some of the costs you might incur include:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5e09b8f3f1df05950ad6b60037318e2", "text": "Utilities and cost of living vary from city to city but maybe not that much. For basic planning purposes you can probably figure to spend as much as you are now, maybe a little more. And adjust as needed when you get there. (And adjust if, for example, you're moving from a very low cost of living area or to a very high cost of living area.) The cost of housing varies quite a bit from city to city, but you can do this research using Zillow, Craigslist, other places. Now, on to moving itself. The cost of moving can vary hugely depending on how much stuff you have and how much work you want to do. On the cheap end, you can rent a U-Haul or one of those portable boxes that they plant outside your old house and move for you. You'll do all the packing/loading/unloading/unpacking yourself but it saves quite a bit of money. My family and I moved from Seattle to California last year using one of those portable box places and it ended up costing us ~$1400 including 30 days of storage at the destination while we looked for a place. We have a <1000 sq foot place with some furniture but not a huge amount and did all the packing/loading ourselves. If we had wanted full service where people come pack, load, unpack, etc, it could have been 2-3x that amount. (And if we had more stuff, it could have been a lot more expensive too. Try not to acquire too much stuff as you just end up having to move it around and take care of it all!) Your employer may cover moving expenses, ask about this when talking about job offers. Un-reimbursed moving expenses are tax-deductible in the US (even if you don't itemize). Since you're just starting out, your best bet is to overestimate how much you think things will cost, then adjust as you arrive and settle in for a few months. Try to save as much as you can, but remember to have fun too. Hope this helps!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "11b99a483d5d5978312e8c54093a0d5f", "text": "\"Figure out how much money you earn, what you spend it on, and how that will change when you have kids (will one of you stay at home? if not, how much will daycare cost and how do you finance the first few month when your child is still too young for daycare?) You will usually plan to spend your current Kaltmiete (rent without utilities) on your mortgage (the Darlehen that is secured by your house) - keep in mind though that a house usually has a higher utility cost than an appartment. When you've figured out what you can save/pay towards a house now and how that will change when you have kids, you can go on to the next step. If you don't want to buy now but want to commit to saving up for a house and also want to secure today's really low interest rates, consider getting a \"\"Bausparvertrag\"\". I didn't find a good translation for Bausparvertrag, so here is a short example of how it works: You take a building saving sum (Bausparsumme) of 150000€ with a savings goal (Sparziel) of 50000€ (the savings goal is usually between 20% and 50% of the sum) and then you make monthly payments into the Bausparvertrag until you reach the savings goal at which point you can take out your savings and a loan of 100000 € (or whatever your difference between the Bausparsumme and Sparziel is). If you're living in an expenisve area, you're likely to need more than 150000 but this is just an example. Upsides: Downsides: If you decide to buy sooner, you can also use your Bausparvertrag to refinance later. If you have a decent income and a permanent job, then ask your bank if they would consider financing your house now. To get a sense of what you'll be able to afford, google \"\"wie viel Haus kann ich mir leisten\"\" and use a few of the many online calculators. Remember that these websites want to sell you on the idea of buying a house instead of paying rent, so they'll usually overestimate the raise in rents - repeat the calculation with rent raise set to 0% to get a feeling for how much you'll be able to afford in today's money. Also, don't forget that you're planning to get children, so do the calculation with only one income, not two, and add the cost of raising the kids to your calculation. Once you've decided on a property, shop around a bit at different banks to get the best financing. If you decide to buy now (or soon), start looking at houses now - go to model homes (Musterhäuser) to find out what style of house you like - this is useful whether you want to buy an existing house or build a new one. If buying an existing house is an option for you, start visiting houses that are on sale in your area in order to practice what to ask and what to look for. You should have a couple of visits under your belt before you really start looking for the one you want to buy. Once you're getting closer to buying or making a contract with a construction company, consider getting an expert \"\"Bausachverständiger\"\". When buying an existing house they can help you estimate the price and also estimate the renovation cost you'll have to factor in for a certain house (new heating, better insulation, ...). When building a new house they can advise you on the contract with the construction company and also examine the construction company's work at each major step (Zwischenabnahme). Source: Own experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fca4003e45a73f2484e59a1c9047e12", "text": "\"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for \"\"unincorporated\"\" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the \"\"expedited development package\"\" which generally has a \"\"processing fee\"\" involved. This is something you make up ie. \"\"What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote\"\" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ba5a90e9600c4a014d4364fbc629860", "text": "Just set up a budget. Indicate how much money comes in, how much goes out to must pay expenses (lodging, food, gas, heat, cooling, etc), and determine how much is leftover for anything else you want. If that amount is ok, then you're fine. If not, something needs adjusting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aef86ebe299a964f826a4562492623f3", "text": "\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d375d8994b009877061e2a7b520df26b", "text": "This is the exact reason I don't live in an expensive city. I turned down a job offer in DC paying 60k right out of school because I could get a similar salary in the midwest and pay about half as much in living expenses. --Sent from a 2 bedroom apartment in an urban area with included laundry facilities for $750/month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b01c6e1d2a78ef5f00f3ba1ab810f5f4", "text": "\"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as \"\"the bay\"\" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more \"\"hip\"\" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave. In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job. That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley. But I'd be saving a shitton more. I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want. I've talked to actual people out there. I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong. But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation. I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2e1d3eb51b5f81aa4c32d67d136edd", "text": "You question is a bit scary to me. You show $2100 rent, and let's even assume that's 100%, i.e. never a vacancy. (Rule of thumb is 10% vacancy. Depending on area, a tenant may stay a year, but when they leave, you might need to have a bit of maintenance and miss 2 months rent) You count the mortgage and taxes, and are left with $500/mo. Where is the list of ongoing expenses? I suggest you put that $500/mo into a separate account and let us know a year from now if anything is left. To Anthony's point. I agree 100%, no one can tell you everything you need to know. But, whatever my answer, or his, other members with experience (similar or different) will add to this, and in the end you'll have a great overview. The truth is that it's easy for me to sit here and see what you may be missing. By the way, if you look at the 'rules of thumb' they will make your head spin. There are those who say the target is for the rent to be 2% of the value of the house. But, there are markets where this will never happen. There's another rule that says the expenses (besides mort/tax) should be planned at 50% of the rent, i.e. you should put aside $1000/mo for expenses over the long term. The new house will be lower of course, but in years past year 10 or so, this number will start to look reasonable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62ad6422a36d599ac2bb9651e5cab4c1", "text": "I think the biggest thing you need in this situation is a budget/spending plan that you both agree on. Look at what your income is going to be and what expenses you'll have, and make cuts where needed. If it's important to you that she be able to spend some money on herself, then make sure there's a budget for it. Often, knowing that there's a plan that will work will help put someone's mind at ease. Also, make sure you're communicating, especially in the subtle non-verbal ways, that you're in this together, and that you don't think it is unfair that you're bringing in most of the income during this time. In general, make sure you're talking with each other a lot and being honest about your feelings about this major life change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e88382b08a124934ea96a6c792286bb", "text": "\"How will 45K-60K \"\"end up in your pocket\"\"? Are you selling your home? Where are you going to live? You talk about moving to Arizona, what is so magical about that place? Congratulations on making a wise purchase. Some people with new found money use it to correct past mistakes. However, if they do not change their behavior they end up in the same situation just less them money they once had. While 50K income is respectable at your age, it is below the national average for households. One factor in having a college education is those with them tend to experience shorter and fewer periods of unemployment especially for males. Nothing will ever replace hustle, however. I'd ask you to have a plan to raise your income. Can you double it in 5 years? You need to get rid of the revolving debt. Do that out of current income. No need to touch the house proceeds for something so small. Shoot for 9 months. Then you need to get rid of the speeding fines and the vehicle loan. That is a lot of vehicle for your income. Again, I would do that out of current income or by selling the vehicle and moving to something more inline with your income. As far as to moving or flipping foreclosures that is more of a question that has to do with your hopes and dreams. Do you want to move your children every 3 years? What if you move to Arizona and it turns out to be quite horrible? You and your wife need to sit down and discuss what is best for your family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc", "text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b17769ae176dec951f352f9edcad1a0c", "text": "\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746213ad410f6343982337e32c2410fe", "text": "Thanks for the reply! Sadly, I have considered NYC, Chicago and even London, but my heart is set on Toronto. Also, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by siphoning funds. I wasn't aware that financial engineers in Toronto do things differently than financial engineers in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7758c3023162cce1343902f8f79088b2", "text": "You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "372d7bd635cc1c27a9062e554bf2b2c0", "text": "\"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6305c9801b75feeff406e17941e530b", "text": "I would advise against this. My main reason for saying so is that you are in a time of major transition, and transition equals uncertainty. What if the new job turns out to be a bad one, and at the same time the house is more difficult to rent out than you expect? That seems like a situation that would be worse than the sum of its parts. Some other things to consider: first, if you want to buy a house where your new job is located, you will not be able to borrow as much for that house. This is especially important if you are moving to a city with a very high Cost of Living. Second, your margin on the rental doesn't sound like it would leave much room for profit. A $100 difference between your mortgage and your rent amount will be eaten up very quickly through property management fees and maintenance. If the value of the house does not rise like you expect, that could mean you put in a lot of effort for very little or no gain. Finally, this will require a good deal of time management. Between relocating, closing on this house, and beginning a new job, it sounds like you'll have a lot going on. This may not concern you much, but it's still worth considering.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a37c0d2a4b9ad14ec12af555d3c68ef6	Explain: “3% annual cost of renting is less than the 9% annual cost of owning”	[ { "docid": "58cc16d9bbd768860b22ec23e190393a", "text": "The 3% and 9% figures are based on the cost of borrowing money and all the other ownership costs associated with real estate. From the same article: http://patrick.net/housing/crash1.html Because it's usually still much cheaper to rent than to own the same size and quality house, in the same school district. In rich neighborhoods, annual rents are typically only 3% of purchase price while mortgage rates are 4% with fees, so it costs more to borrow the money as it does to borrow the house. Renters win and owners lose! Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance come to about 8% of purchase price, which is more than twice the cost of renting and wipes out any income tax benefit. Imagine you are renting a house. If the cost of your annual rent is lower than X then renting is obviously the best idea from a monetary calculation. If rent is greater than Y being a landlord makes more sense. In the middle it is debatable, and the non-monetary reasons need to be considered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff1b45edc4eca37b570b308f78dab670", "text": "\"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level \"\"paying rent\"\" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a \"\"4.16\"\" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a \"\"20\"\", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment. The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c02bdf6aeb4bfdfa3d5984e2b27f6d83", "text": "If there are a lot of houses for sale, can you be sure that in a year or two you can sell yours? How long does the average house in that area stay on the market before it is sold? What percentage of houses never get sold? If it can't be sold due to the crowded market you will be forced to rent the house. The question for you then is how much rental income can you get? Compare the rental income to your monthly cost of owning, and managing the house. One benefit to buying a house in a market that is easy to rent a house would be if you are forced to move quickly, then you aren't stuck being 3 months into a 12 month lease. Keep in mind that markets can change rather dramatically in just a few years. Housing costs were flat for much of the 90's, then rocketed up in the first half of the last decade, and after a big drop, they are one a slow climb back up. But the actual path they are on depends on the part of the US you are in. The rule of thumb in the past was based on the fact that over a few years the price would rise enough overcome the closing costs on the two transactions. Unfortunately the slow growth in the 90's meant that many had to bring checks to closing because the equity gained wasn't enough to overcome the closing costs due to low down payment loans. The fast growth period meant that people got into exotic loans to maximize the potential income when prices were going up 10-20% a year. When prices dropped some found that they bought houses they couldn't afford, but couldn't sell to break even on the transaction. They were stuck and had to default on the mortgage. In fact I have never seen a time frame when the rule of thumb ever applied.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4baef5a14ff7cef472938983fe51ce2e", "text": "More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5569b2e4758a058d776eaa4895d53251", "text": "There is a mathematical way to determine the answer, if you know all the variables. (And that's a big if.) For example, suppose you rent for 4 years and the price of rent never increases. The total amount you will have paid is: 60048 = 28,800. If you currently have money sitting in the bank earning only a negligible amount of interest, and you can purchase the house for X, and then sell it for exactly what you paid 4 years from now, and you have 0 expenses otherwise, then purchasing it will save you 28,800 compared to renting. Obviously that makes some assumptions which are not possible. Now you need to calculate the variables: All of these variables can drastically effect the profit margin, and unfortunately they will vary greatly depending on your country, location, and the condition of the home. Once you estimate each of the variables, it's important to realize that if you purchase, your profit or loss can swing unexpectedly in either direction based on appreciation/depreciation which can be difficult to predict, in part because it is somewhat tied to the overall macro-economy of where you live (state or country). On the flip side, if you rent, it's pretty easy to calculate your cost as approximately 28,800 over 4 years. (Perhaps slightly more for modest rent increases.) Lastly, if you elect to purchase the house, realize that you're investing that money in real estate. You could just as easily rent and invest that money elsewhere, if you want to choose a more aggressive or conservative investment with your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8d93091dc67ea4428fab885a4701634", "text": "Avoiding a cost (interest) isn't quite the same as income. There is no entry, nothing for you to consider for this avoided interest. What you do have is an expense that's no longer there, and you can decide to use that money elsewhere each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5899a75c9942cfffea9c6cdb3cbf77ab", "text": "The big problem with your argument is the 10% per year figure, because in the long term (especially if adjusted for inflation) the prices have not been going up nearly that fast. Here is a site with some nice graphs for prices over the last 40 years, and it's pretty clear to see that pretty much just what you were talking about happened, prices outpaced the ability of people to pay, which progressively locked out more and more first time buyers, and eventually that breaks the cycle, pops the bubble, and the prices adjust. There is always of course the choice to NOT buy a house, and just rent, or if you had the feeling that you are near the top of a bubble, SELL and go back to renting. It's interesting to note that in general, rental rates did not increase at nearly the same pace as the prices in the recent bubble. (which of course made it harder for anyone who bought 'investment' properties in the recent 8 years or so to cover their payments via rental revenue.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bbabfbd9e194fcd9a3fcd566cc2d9c1", "text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83e47cb9631f83ce924a41ea510ae86", "text": "\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30e0b1abe88e7876abe713c3300903a3", "text": "you are discounting the cash used, the discount rate for cash should be whatever you determine is your risk premium over the risk free rate not the equity growth rate. if equity growth rate is above your determined required return the equity investment is wealth destroying and if it is above that then it is wealth increasing. The difficulty I see is that the scenario is all wrong, what you are really after is a rent vs buy decision. Do I take this money and rent a place or do I buy a house? In either case you could invest the remainder after paying your rent/mortgage in the equity market no? So what really matters is the difference in cost between renting and buying. Let (EGR)=equity growth rate Rent = rent M = Mortgage payment I = income HA = home value appreciation Now the question is is renting or buying a better decision two scenarios, renting first PMT =(I - rent) I/y = (EGR) N =Time horizon in years FV= Gain from cf left after paying rent then discount to present day at your required rate of return to find present value now scenario for buying, this is more complicated because you are investing two different cf streams at different rates and have to calculate both and add them together. 1) CF 1 the mortgage payments buy you equity in the house which appreciates (hopefully) but can be extremely volatile. This is the cf stream scenario one doesnt have, when renting the rent payments poof disappear forever and you earn nothing on them 2) The income left after mortgage payment which can be invested at the market rate measured the same way as above. *This is extremely simplistic and doesnt take into account expected maintenance, property taxes and other costs intrinsic to the investment. It also doesnt take into account the lost down payment setting you well behind the renter. TL DR: It is complicated but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views and it doesnt matter what expected growth rates are since any investment with an expected growth rate below your required rate is wealth destroying since you are paying for something which returns cash flows too small for its risk level. If you use growth rates as discount rates then all your investments will net to zero", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fdeaaf29db0432b2ef85b3665e61326", "text": "New York City is high cost-of-living, and I have absolutely no clue why people live there. It's a tough place, and the taxes are oppressive. People buy a studio apartment for $150,000 that has 175 square feet (that's not a typo) plus a $700/month maintenance fee that continues after the mortgage is paid off. And that's just what the fee is now. Our rental house (which used to be our primary residence) at 1,300 square feet has a (15-year) mortgage payment of about $800, and $1,000 per year in property taxes. And my area isn't particularly low cost-of-living. High cost-of-living is just that. More money flies out the door just for the privilege of living there. You make good investments with real estate by buying property at a good price in a good location. Those deals are everywhere, but in high CoL locations you're probably more susceptible to price fluctuations which will trap you in your property if your mortgage goes underwater. Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I don't buy your recommendation to get property in high CoL areas. There are desirable low CoL places to live, too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7c33ced8c86c10126c2dbb15dd6c64", "text": "\"First add the inflation, then minus your expenses for the year. If you are better than that, you have done \"\"good\"\". For example: - 1.)You have $10,000 in 2014. 2.) You need $1,000 for your expenses in 2014, so you are left with $9000. 3.) Assuming the inflation rate is at 3 percent, the $10,000 that you initially had is worth $10,300 in 2015. 4.) Now, if you can get anything over 10,300 with the $9,000 that you have you are in a better position than you were last year i.e(10300-9000)/9000 - i.e 14.44%. So anything over 14.44 percent is good. Depending on where you live, living costs and inflation may vary, so please do the calculation accordingly since this is just an example. Cheers\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdaad658b80ae1ec0572bf80e2448973", "text": "\"after 30 years, you'd have a million dollar house vs a quarter million dollar house. You've captured three quarters of a million dollars in rent, given my napkin math hypothetical. As I figure the math, a 250,000 house appreciating to a million dollar house in 30 years requires a sustained ~4.9% appreciation every year--seems unrealistic. The historical rate of inflation, on average, has been closer to 3-3.5%; a 3% appreciation would give a final value of $589k. This also doesn't taken into account the idea that you may have bought a property during a housing bubble, and so then you wouldn't get 3% year-over-year returns. But also, in terms of \"\"capturing rent\"\", you are not factoring in necessary or possible costs that renting doesn't have: mortgage interest and insurance, maintenance, property tax, insurance, buying and selling associated fees, and, importantly, opportunity costs (in that the money not tied up in the house could be invested elsewhere). So it is not such a slam dunk as you make it out. Many use the NY Times buy/rent calculator to compare renting vs. buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00df1661bbb7f46e4761ef8d1b612ca9", "text": "I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4409c0cb75ff137c6e5b8608a110d6e3", "text": "\"The three basic needs are food, clothing, and shelter. Housing falls into the third category. Because it is \"\"basic,\"\" housing takes up a large part of one's disposable income. The rule of thumb is that you shouldn't spend more than 25% of your income on rent or mortgages. And that is income BEFORE taxes. Anything much more than that takes up too much of one's budget. You simply CAN'T double housing's share of the budget from 25% to 50%. Whereas, it's easy to go from 1% to 2% for say, a cellphone upgrade. In the long run, housing prices are constrained by the size of people's housing budgets, which in turn are tied to incomes. Nowadays, that includes FOREIGN buyers. So there may be a case where west coast housing prices are driven up by Asian buyers, or Florida housing by buyers from Latin America, driving Americans out of local markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "288eadaa01cd9248517c0b96a13118d2", "text": "I have purchased three properties. I will say the #1 rule is 20% things go wrong all the time. Seriously, renters are pretty terrible. If you aren't making 20% profit on the books. So add up mortgage, insurance, all costs. Then multiply that by 1.25. Whatever number that is is what you must get for rent just to break even. I can't stress this enough. If rental rates don't support you getting that kinda price then don't get into it. This is the break even number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67f2b35494713624f0203abd7192d20", "text": "There seems to be no such information available. What is available is that number of claims are high and the Title Insurance companies have gone bankrupt as per the wikipedia article In 2003, according to ALTA, the industry paid out about $662 million in claims, about 4.3% percent of the $15.7 billion taken in as premiums. By comparison, the boiler insurance industry, which like title insurance requires an emphasis on inspections and risk analysis, pays 25% of its premiums in claims. However, no reference to the relationship between when claims are made and when policies are issued is found. As of 2008, the top three remaining title insurers all lost money, while LandAmerica went bankrupt and sold its title business to Fidelity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance#Industry_profitability The amount of premium received and claim made can be got from some of the companies balance sheet. For Fidelity its at http://www.investor.fnf.com/releasedetail.cfm?CompID=FNT&ReleaseID=363350 The article in here mentions the claims ratio as 5%. Refer http://www.federaltitle.com/blog/title-insuance-qaa", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6bdd64e422b10b10e887d1d121fd6572	Is my mother eligible for SNAP?	[ { "docid": "dcff7e8f03724fea6eca6a00a67ca652", "text": "If she lives by herself, my guess would be that she qualifies as a household of one. Either way, her monthly income is below the threshold, so she should be eligible. Per the linked website The only way to determine if your household is eligible for SNAP benefits is to apply. I'd say it's worth a try.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ef0e77135876efe3d9cb40b5a7014832", "text": "Businesses from food to retail, all assume the risk of spoilage, theft, or any form of lost assets. It's just business. With that said, I'm sure your mom didn't imagine too many ways she could've lost out when opening her nailshop. I'm unsure what the policy is that you're looking for, but my best advice to you would be to cut your losses and learn from this. Hopefully you and your mother can be sure to check or figure out a system to ensure customers don't lie about their payments. Good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23a5c0093ece0aabf8dd3a31cad1c119", "text": "\"The bottom line is you broke the law. While this is pretty much victimless, it is none the less a violation of the law and should be avoided in the future. I would have not agreed to this as a parent and it sets a bad precedent. As such I would avoid trading and move the money into cash until you turn 18. Once you turn 18 you should transfer the money into an account of your own. From there you may proceed as you wish. As far as paying taxes, of course you need to pay them. Your mother did this as a favor to you and by doing such you caused her tax bill to rise. As a gesture of goodwill you should at least provide her with half of the profits, not the 15% you propose. Fifteen percent would be the \"\"I am an ungrateful son\"\" minimum, and I would seriously consider giving all of the profits to her.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c092bf44c2f02f4c8d191a2e47685d81", "text": "If a parent has access to the birth certificate, social security card, passport, and other legal documentation indicating family relationship along with the minimum balance, I expect either online or in-person creating a Joint Tenancy With Right of Survivorship account wouldn't be too difficult and allows for either party to add or remove funds. Conceivably the bank account could have been created as a Custodial account but risks when the son reaches the Age of Majority on the account she would lose control. If you have access to the above mentioned documents and depending on parental rights assigned after the divorce you can follow what is suggested in this link: https://blog.smartcredit.com/2011/07/28/what-age-can-i-have-a-credit-report/ to get the credit reports. The credit reports should list what lender accounts are tied to your son. They won't list any 'credit' assets like savings or investment accounts: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/in-your-credit-report.aspx As suggested a credit freeze would be appropriate. If he has reached 18 already, he can do it himself. Unless she under a Termination of Parental Rights order what I mentioned above should still hold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac6d741afb6245d76903ba31c7d5ffaf", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/five-myths-about-welfare-and-child-poverty) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) *** > Even in a non-expansion state, the single mother will still have substantially more combined income from welfare and earnings by holding a minimum-wage job than by relying only on welfare. > The notion of a welfare poverty trap is typically based on analyses using combinations of welfare benefits that rarely occur in the real world. > The data in the article show that when a single mother has earnings at the poverty level, she will typically have combined earnings and welfare at roughly twice the poverty level. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6uzqzz/five_myths_about_welfare_and_child_poverty/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~195270 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: welfare^#1 benefit^#2 work^#3 program^#4 percent^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c26cb8169b5246436c64281f34e0b34", "text": "\"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?\"\" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31b79ea910bbf70ddab9ee8a95344ae", "text": "You don't get any tax benefit. When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone. The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom. You can then deduct the contributions to that charity. However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing. By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that. If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K. I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4449c7883b32e00a325fda321ca845", "text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f5d3b823c65d40d639baf15cf77379", "text": "\"Fitting a description? Stop it. That's a gut feeling you have no evidence of. Let's talk numbers. She took home $76 a day from Popeyes without taxes. She currently only has one job, so let's operate on that. She takes home $313 after taxes a week coming to $1278 per month. She has two sons. Let's say she has a two bedroom apartment. The medium price for that in Missouri is $883. The article mentioned her son's were two bus rides away. She can't drive because she can't afford insurance. A monthly bus pass for one person in Kansas City is $50. After Taxes, Rent, and transportation she has $345. According to USDA, her two sons would need $348 for a month \"\"thrifty\"\" (lowest income) level food budget because they're 14 and 15. She's already broke after Food, Rent, and Transportation. We haven't discussed utility or phone bills. Her children's transportation,Internet service, Clothing,Heat, or School supplies. Are their larger issues at play that allow this to happen? Absolutely. However, the minimum wage used to keep a family of three out of poverty. She's the head of a family of three and she's homeless. Her spending habits could've been better when she had two jobs. However, we don't know those, Her debt, the percentage of her money that goes to health care or any ailments her children might have, but we do know she suffers from high blood pressure. Which the average black patient spends $887 a year on hypertension medication. You're also completely disregarding that poor people can't do things in Bulk. It's more sensible to buy something that cost 0.15 per unit as opposed to 0.25 per unit. However, if you can't afford the bulk item, you're stuck buying the one with less value. Her house was condemned. She had to move. Signing a lease usually requires The First Month, Last month, and security deposit. If we're operating on the median rent, we're asking her to come up with close to 2700 dollars in a day. Do I think we should have a nation $15.00 Minimum wage? no. Do I think minimum wage should be based on average cost of living and median housing in states/large cities? Yes. Sources: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/CostofFoodJul2014.pdf https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-handle-a-500-surprise-bill/ http://piperreport.com/blog/2013/05/13/health-care-spending-hypertension-cost-high-blood-pressure/ http://store.kcata.org/31daypass.php /u/philosoraptor1000 it's not just personal responsibility. The cost of living has skyrocketed. The minimum wage hasn't. Your sarcasm is trash too. /u/thewaywardsaint This sub has become a joke because users like you spew trash, condescending, opinions instead of voicing your opinion using facts, concepts and numbers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d6130885a18b321ac8e637dc387bf10", "text": "You're crazy to cash out your Roth or take on 401k loan, as that is addressing a short-term problem without doing anything about the longer-term issue. Just don't do it. Through no fault of her own, your mom is insolvent. It happens to people all of the time, and the solution is chapter 7 bankruptcy. The only thing that I would do with my money in this situation is help her with bankruptcy attorney fees if needed, and maybe bid on it at auction, if the house in in good shape.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b88f011e80981c6d7b69bdd61da050e6", "text": "\"If you're under 18 there's not much you can do. As a minor, your kinda just stuck. There are routes to go, but not many. If you're over 18, here's what you can do. Now these steps won't help you not anger your mother. They're \"\"what you can do\"\" but it doesn't mean you \"\"should\"\". Keep in mind that it might be better just to have a conversation. In that conversation, if you think you need to say, \"\"I will file a complaint with the FBI, and have you arrested if you don't stop! You're breaking the law and invading my privacy.\"\" Again these are drastic steps to take. More moderate steps may be advisable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeefa579e9789a189943f7614788d455", "text": "I'm amazed at how much debt my mom was able to accumulate before they finally cut her off. And it was all unsecured debt so there was jack shit they can do about her defaulting. If you're poor, and old (no assets, no house, no nothing), it makes sense to go as far into unsecured debt as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df414047a4aeb337a3f7f42e8a3c734d", "text": "I think the statute of limitations is 2 years so I suspect that she may not qualify, also BOA was not the last bank to hold her mortgage. I doubt she'll receive anything. She's just glad the whole mess is behind her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eff1aef92ad7f047c4edc765b417c3d4", "text": "\"You can pontificate about how life is so hard for her because shit costs money and you're right, she can't support herself and kids. However, that doesn't change the basic economic reality that working full time at Popeyes simply DOES NOT provide enough value to her employer and there are two many people with her very low skill set that she cannot command a higher wage. No amount of government programs will change that. Robbing the tax payers through welfare, killing businesses and destroying jobs by imposing a wage that simply is infeasible is counter productive, unsustainable, and simply misguided. Don't believe me? Ask the University of Washington who have the numbers on Seattle's ever escalating minimum wage and the effect on [jobs.] (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-26/shocking-study-finds-seattle-min-wage-hikes-has-cost-works-14mm-hours-year-6700-jobs) This is, of course, assuming you care that people are being put out of work so a few can be paid a \"\"living wage\"\". Welfare is an endless tap of free money, [right?] (http://www.usdebtclock.org) The irony of your oh so well cited comment is that you didn't apply it to your own proposed solution of a minimum wage increase. [Here's](http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/higher-fast-food-wages-higher-fast-food-prices) a great analysis of effect of this change on consumer prices, how it affects the capital side of the equation of whether to operate a restaurant at all, and how a higher minimum wage impairs the creation of entry level jobs. Succinctly, minimum wage jobs were never meant to be able to support a family of three, no matter how much you wish it could. By creating artificially higher wages you'll get higher unemployment, more substitution of labor with more capital intensive solutions (ordering kiosks, etc), and higher taxes and consumer prices. Edit: Link B.S. Edit 2: trigger warning Also, it's a lot easier to raise kids with two working parents, that's just math for you. Talk about a bad personal choice that no one has touched on. Poor kids :(\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212", "text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "355895b69526d03aa8b506b3138ca6b3", "text": "\"The author really glosses over the impact of changes pertaining to \"\"return to work\"\" requirements/qualification. [In Georgia, some recipient groups have been reduced by 60%](http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/more-will-have-work-keep-food-stamps/pu0Y9SASOVxc5QwEzJJLdJ/). I'd be cautious about celebrating this kind of report being connected to people rising out of poverty status. The more obvious conclusion is that the reductions owe more to people simply being excluded from SNAP.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fe29d1dcc5f16ddd79634fcf1881e303	Is there any downside snapping a picture (or scanning a copy) of every check one writes vs. using a duplicate check?	[ { "docid": "ce52603664902ae8e7733c89c63ff044", "text": "\"For me, the main benefit of using duplicate checks is that the copy is created automatically. If I had to take an extra step, whether taking a photo or writing on a stub, I would probably not always remember to do it. There is also the issue that you might need to write a check when you don't have your smartphone with you, or it is broken or has a dead battery, etc. There are various pros and cons of having an electronic record versus a paper record. A paper copy of a check is more vulnerable to physical loss or intrusion, but an electronic record is more vulnerable to hacking. You also have to keep the images organized somehow, and take care of data security and backups for the images. You'll have to evaluate which is the greater concern for you. A minor side point is that check duplicates often omit the account number and obscure your signature. A photo of the original check would include both of these. As far as \"\"evidence\"\", it seems to me they're both equally good evidence that you wrote the check - but that's not really that useful. In most sorts of disputes, what you would need to prove is that you actually delivered the check to the intended recipient, and neither the photo nor the paper copy is evidence of that. You could have written the check, taken your photo / copy, and then torn it up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7cbd25677ebf66c427b4f71d96129c0", "text": "No, there is no downside. I personally don't use duplicate checks. I simply make a record of the checks I write in the check register. A copy of the check, whether a duplicate or a photo, isn't really proof of payment for anyone but yourself, as it is very easy to write a check after the fact and put a different date on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db9727bc51b56367e0c52dcca1121c14", "text": "\"When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too. You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be \"\"good evidence\"\" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality \"\"image\"\" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "874a7c69d95291613b4d08871ce6dc57", "text": "Assuming neither one charges a fee and you are talking about automated non-cash, non-check transactions: Withdrawal is slightly better if you are 100% sure you have the money (or better yet, twice the money) to cover it. It puts more incentive on the bank that is responsible for the act to do it correctly, because they will then be the bank holding the money. It also creates an added check because there is no possibility of having an error in transfer information result in sending your money to the wrong account. (This is unlikely anyway, but not impossible depending on the bank and interface). Deposit may be slightly better if you are not, or if you are concerned about technical foul-ups at the bank. Depending on the bank, a deposit with insufficient funds may be cancelled rather than going through and then being cancelled, which could result in various banking fees (returned item fees, overdraft fees, etc...). If there is a technical foul-up during a withdrawal, you run the risk of having banks get confused--I know of a case where it took a major bank months to fix a withdrawal transaction that was denied the second time when they activated it twice, but the account balance mistakenly showed an extra thousand dollars for the duration.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1e1220560ce3d4ece5ce7f64ee937e5", "text": "I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee98cdc37024de3dac00fdb75f6e1d98", "text": "Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f57b3c54430661ed27fb51040d0e1cef", "text": "\"It's called a \"\"checkbook register\"\" -- learn what it is and how to use it properly (not only recording your transactions & maintaining your own running balance, but also including \"\"reconciling\"\" it with your bank-issued statements or online transaction listings) and you will not overdraw. It's [fairly basic stuff](http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/spanish/pdf/teachers/specialneeds/lev_3/lesson_06/6_3activity.pdf) but it never ceases to amaze me how many (supposedly \"\"smart\"\") people fail to do it properly (if at all).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc0868f993b2fbc3bd7ab7251dc90b69", "text": "I do this, and as you say the biggest downside is not having a separate account for your savings. If you're the type of person who struggles with restraint this is not for you. On the other hand this type of account gives more interest than any other type of US Checking or Savings account I've seen, so you will benefit from the interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5bd30df315f45d3433c7b6140119124", "text": "\"I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks. Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a \"\"reconciled\"\" flag on each transaction. This has 3 states: n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec5412057d995fa26c9d1cff9cdb278d", "text": "\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b941ec8a64dd8a7efd3690dab33cd768", "text": "Try the following apps/services: Receipt Bank (paid service, gathers paper receipts, scans them and processes the data), I've tested it, and it recognizing receipts very well, taking picture is very quick and easy, then you can upload the expenses into your accounting software by a click or automatically (e.g. FreeAgent), however the service it's a bit expensive. They've apps for Android and iPhone. Expentory (app and cloud-based service for capturing expense receipts on the move),", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43bf814aee8a481c647ff68c9defa496", "text": "\"As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time. From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account \"\"savings\"\" or \"\"checking\"\", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account \"\"checking\"\" that you were supposed to label \"\"savings\"\". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a8bc7193252f2ccfec889fe8110dcb", "text": "No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79cf9bb9c76a12e5bb6ccf3b1186e6be", "text": "\"Firstly, it isn't so generous. It is a win-win, but the bank doesn't have to mail me a free box of checks with my new account, or offer free printing to compete for my business. They already have the infrastructure to send out checks, so the actual cost for my bank to mail a check on my behalf is pretty minimal. It might even save them some cost and reduce exposure. All the better if they don't actually mail a check at all. Per my bank Individuals and most companies you pay using Send Money will be mailed a paper check. Your check is guaranteed to arrive by the delivery date you choose when you create the payment. ... A select number of companies–very large corporations such as telecoms, utilities, and cable companies–are part of our electronic biller network and will be paid electronically. These payments arrive within two business days... So the answer to your question depend on what kind of bill pay you used. If it was an electronic payment, there isn't a realistic possibility the money isn't cashed. If your bank did mail a paper check, the same rules would apply as if you did it yourself. (I suppose it would be up to the bank. When I checked with my bank's support this was their answer.) Therefore per this answer: Do personal checks expire? [US] It is really up to your bank whether or not they allow the check to be cashed at a later date. If you feel the check isn't cashed quickly enough, you would have to stop payment and contact whoever you were trying to pay and perhaps start again. (Or ask them to hustle and cash the check before you stop it.) Finally, I would bet a dime that your bank doesn't \"\"pre-fund\"\" your checks. They are just putting a hold on the equivalent money in your account so you don't overdraw. That is the real favor they do for you. If you stopped the check, your money would be unfrozen and available. EDIT Please read the comment about me losing a dime; seems credible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1321dc071d64c45d197ac4f381d77ac9", "text": "\"It surely doesn't HURT to keep a receipt. I tend to pile up receipts in my desk drawer, never look at them, and then every few months throw them all out. If a vendor writes a receipt by hand or if the cash register is not tied in to the credit card system, keeping a receipt could give you evidence against mistakes or fraud. Like if the vendor gives you a receipt for $10 and then sends a transaction to the credit card company for $20, you could use the receipt as evidence of the problem. But if the vendor is trying to really cheat you, the most likely thing for him to do is run the legitimate transaction through, and then some time later run a fake transaction. So say today you go to vendor X, buy something for $20, and he bills your credit card $20. Then a few days later he bills you another $100 even though you never came back to the store. Sure, you have a receipt for $20. But you don't have a receipt for the $100 because you never authorized that transaction. Your receipt proves nothing -- presumably you're not disputing the $20. If you complain to the bank or go to the police or whatever, saying, \"\"Hey look, I don't have a receipt for the $100\"\" doesn't prove anything. How do they know you didn't just throw it away? It's difficult to prove that you never had such a receipt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac976ed1740aa33d2e14bfdd1b827286", "text": "DCU, Alliant Credit Union has completely scan only options (no need to mail in checks later). BofA, SchoolsFirstCU allow initial scan, but you need to mail in checks later. All these are no fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38a29e35873ce5ddf201e4ff38c05842", "text": "checkers should be paid by item quantity/rate they scan. Many o time have seen chatty checkers with a few in their line while the person next to them has moved 3 times the good quantity across the scanner. I also loathe check writers, they wait till the last minute, then ask the price again a few times and I swear use calligraphy to fill out the check - taking more time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc9debd5d052930eabc49b7000d8de0", "text": "The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
430b408ce759cc081033def25e069ab9	Debit cards as bad as credit cards?	[ { "docid": "f7cad9c1053fcf874abf482261d9e85c", "text": "\"It's a real pain in the rear to get cash only from a bank teller (the end result of cutting the card as suggested). There is a self control issue here that, like weight loss, should ultimately be addressed for a psychologically healthy lifestyle. You don't mention a budget here. A budget is one of the first tools necessary for setting spending limits. Categorizing your money into inviolable categories, such as: will force you to look at any purchase in context of your other needs and goals. Note that savings is at the top of the list, supporting the aphorism to, \"\"Pay yourself first.\"\" Make realistic allowances for each budget category, then force yourself to stick to this budget by whatever means necessary. Cash in several envelopes labeled with each category can physically reinforce your priorities (the debit card is usually left at home for now). Roll remaining funds from each month over into the next month to cover irregular larger expenses, such as auto repairs. What sort of investing are we talking about? If you are just talking about retirement savings, an automatic deduction of just $50 to a Roth IRA account at a discount brokerage every pay check is a good start. An emergency fund of 6 months expenses is also common financial advice, and can likewise be built from small automatic deductions. In defense of wise use of plastic, a debit card can be a great retroactive budgeting tool because it records all spending for you. It takes a lot more effort to save and enter receipts for cash, and a compulsive spender without a budget is just as likely to run out of money whether or not he uses plastic. You could keep receipts in the envelope you take the cash out of when you're getting started. If you are so addicted to spending that you must cut your debit card to enforce your budget, at least consider this a temporary measure to get yourself under control. When the bank issues you a new card, re-evaluate this decision and the self control measures you've implemented to see if you've grown enough to keep the card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0758355d344165dedfb84f9bc539cca1", "text": "This sounds more like a behavioral than a debit card issue to me TBH. Did you put the money you're putting away into a separate savings account that you (mentally) labelled 'for investment'? That's pretty much what I do (and I have a couple of savings accounts for exactly that reason) and even though I know I've got $x in the savings accounts, the debit card I carry only lets me spend money from my main bank account. By the time I've transferred the money, the urge to spend has usually gone away, even though it often only takes seconds to make the transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc42d8ae9f3c8806be1440b68ecf5bb5", "text": "If your goal is to make it harder for you to use to make impulse purchases then YES. Having to always have cash for purchases will make you less likely to make impulse purchases you don't really need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d16e8c96a6622dd1250b10d5e03524d", "text": "If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbe544503416bd170757a92270310718", "text": "How about just stop buying stuff?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "000e9d5c76cf02bf83b822bf0370944a", "text": "\"Using cash instead of a debit card lets you see in real time how much cash you have left and where it's going. It's a lot \"\"harder\"\" to see the cash disappear from your wallet than it is to swipe the plastic (whether it's a debit or credit card). Using cash is a way to keep the funds in check and to keep spending within a budget (i.e. you can't spend it if you don't physically have the cash anymore).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "931a71617c6cce67916cc5fe4ce1592a", "text": "Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c1a4f629b9f84b57d881ce45744b69b0", "text": "Psychology Today had an interesting article from July 11, 2016, in which they go through the psychological aspects of using cash vs. a credit card. This article cites a 2008 paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied that found: “the more transparent the payment outflow, the greater the aversion to spending or higher the ‘pain of paying’ …leading to less transparent payment modes such as credit cards and gift cards (vs. cash) being more easily spent or treated as play or ‘monopoly money.’” The article cites a number of other studies that are of interest on this topic as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e98a39641e112d9ac6b9f797f28319c9", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8f019a27ed05f78e83063182b5f864b", "text": "In Addition to @JoeTaxpayer's answer, in the UK credit cards offer additional protection than if you were to pay by debit card. This includes (but is not limited to) getting your money back if the company you've bought something from goes bust before your order is complete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81cd532d7fb187eafb3a3964bd8ad3f", "text": "Debit cards can be riskier than credit cards. That's why I personally avoid debit cards unless I have a very good reason to go that direction (e.g. HSA accounts). To explain the risk, consider what happens if someone steals the card or number and starts using it: Credit card: You get a big bill, which you dispute and eventually get dismissed. Debit card: Your bank account balance drops, you don't have access to cash, and your checks start bouncing and you rack up bounced check charges with your bank and stores where you write checks. Eventually, you convince the bank it was fraud and they refund the money to your account. The big difference is that while it is going on you are out the money with a debit card, and with a credit card the BANK is out the money. The above scenario happened to my brother and it wasn't pretty. He was having to borrow money to pay his rent and groceries while the bank sorted it out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ccf39b3489f7603142b6c9326d7289e", "text": "Don't switch just because you hear people panicking on the talk shows. Banks are competitive business and won't start charging for using debit cards too fast. If and when they decide to do such a thing after all - then start shopping and see who doesn't catch up with the fees and still provides the services you want for the price you're willing to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8ff59ea2c23ffa7b310d9932d2fd828", "text": "\"I also feel it's important to NOT get a credit card. I'm in my mid 30's and have had credit cards since I was 20, as has everyone I know. Every single one of those people, with the exception of my dad, is currently carrying some amount of credit card debt - almost always in the thousands of dollars. Here is the essential problem with credit cards. Everyone sets out with good intentions, to use the credit card like a debit card, and pay charges off before interest accrues. However, almost no-one has the discipline to remember to do this, and a balance quickly builds up on the card. Also, it's extremely easy to prioritize other bill payments before credit card payments, resulting in a balance building up on the card. It's almost magical how quickly a balance will build up on a credit card. Ultimately, they are simply too convenient, too tempting for most human beings. The world, and especially the North American world, is in a massive debt crisis. It is very easy to borrow money these days, and our culture is at the point where \"\"buy now pay later\"\" is an accepted practice. Now that I have young children, I will be teaching them the golden rule of \"\"don't buy something until you have cash to pay for it in full!\"\" It sounds like an over simplification but this one rule will save you an incredible amount of financial grief over time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0d57edd6481ac8cd3517bceeb8db84f", "text": "Switch to cash for a few months. No debit. No credit. This will help for two reasons: Once you've broken the bad habits, you should be able to go back to cards for the convenience factor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53cb7cc61f2dfbdbd6f1da0668f6fc1d", "text": "\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \"\"EC\"\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdf2fe80ac62aabbb8aa1b4e141e49d6", "text": "My guess would be for small merchants there could be a small difference. For large merchants, the cash is also at a cost equivalent to the card fees. Check for my other answer at How do credit card companies make profit?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f4767308966ca2738264c9fce47c28", "text": "Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19db7d1ea4440024576bf59019233a4a", "text": "Debit cards do not earn the bank any interest from you whereas credit cards do, so they want to give incentive to use credit over debit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6c537c39eadda8419c171c2a36521a2", "text": "\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbb06dfe9438008cec5777b6f5f7541c", "text": "A hotel can accept the debit card because each night they can withdraw the money. If you don't have sufficient funds they can instantly lock you out of your room. They an also limit your ability to access room service, and other extra expensive options. The rental car can't do that once you have the car. Plus they never know if you will bring the car back with damages, toll charges, and an empty tank of gas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3884d8045ae2d4c7950e7bd887f9b506", "text": "It depends on your bank and your terms of service, but using the card one way or the other may affect things such as how long it takes to process, what buyer protections you have, etc. It also affects the store as I believe they are charged differently for debit vs credit transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229e624be26e55c13dc369974db632b8", "text": "Just use a credit card like AMEX Blue that categorizes your purchases, and reconcile at the end of the month. There is no good reason to use a debit card.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f381070305c9bfb8efae0983305e2290	How could I find someone to find a room for me to live in? (For a fee, of course.)	[ { "docid": "722cb8a0d538f3d791365958f12411e6", "text": "Many colleges have offices that can help students find off campus housing. They will have information about rooms being let by families, and about houses being shared by groups of students. The biggest issue is that many of the best places were filled months ago. With only a month to go before classes start time is tight. You can also look for electronic listings organized through a campus newspaper. The advantage of going through university resources is that they will have more information regarding the types of students they are looking for. A house full of undergrads is different than a family house that rents only to young professors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edbff83fbbc625eea5795c3962a03074", "text": "\"There are services, usually associated with real estate agents, that provide apartment search services for relocating professionals. I was very underimpressed when I was offered the use of such a service and did better on my own, but I did have the company paying for a hotel room while I searched so I had time to investigate alternative channels -- and in fact found and took a place being offered by a co-worker's father. But if you're really looking for \"\"a room\"\" in a shared living situation, and you aren't already on campus talking to other students, I agree that the school's housing office, or the dorms and/or fraternity houses and/or independent living groups are your best bet. In a college town most roommate openings get snapped up pretty quickly and are more likely to go to someone who is a known or vouched-for quantity.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d531e6c8919ffe0ead8462feb2aba3db", "text": "I wouldn't start a bidding war if I were you. Sometimes you may get potentially bad tenants who cannot find a property anywhere else offering more money just to get in a place. If you know nothing else about these people how can you guarantee they will keep paying the rent once they get in. The things you should be doing is checking the prospective tenant's employment and income status, making sure they are able to easily pay the rent. You should check their credit report to see if they have a history of bad debts. And you should be checking with their previous landlords or real estate agents to see if they caused any damages to their previous properties. You should create a form that prospective tenants can fill out providing you with all the essential information you are after. Get them so sign a statement that gives you authority to ask information about them with other people (their previous landlords/ real estate agents, and their employers). Have a system set out on how you will assess all applicants and for the information the applicants need to provide you with. Treat it as a business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95256edb22555049c2e5d130e88e5287", "text": "\"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say \"\"you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days\"\". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e912dbff135225ac31d53bff72a6ff8", "text": "\"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done. I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs. I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot). The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit. But that's not you. So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after. Almost certainly, he really wants a \"\"fit and ready to rent\"\" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it. As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that. Nor would a court, IMO. The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies. What's more, it's rather difficult to \"\"size up\"\" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff. A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you. Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see. So, tread carefully here. If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal. Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant. Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear. In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all. As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA. Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder. As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators. Though $600 seems awfully high. Other than that, you can argue the terms are \"\"unconscionable\"\" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair. However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss. I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive. Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them. Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.) You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again. Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal. You gave your word. The powerful act here is to keep your word. Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them. And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave. It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all. No. In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change. That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffb8bd6bf8c66369463193f0e40c7f18", "text": "This tale makes me sad the more I learn of it. I am impressed with your dedication and caring for your ex-wife and particularly your kids; you seem like a good person from your questions. But you are tired and exasperated too. You have every right to be. The problem isn't how this woman can rent a new apartment (which there isn't a good way that won't screw over some unsuspecting landlord) but how to get this woman into conseling on a regular basis. Not just money, but personal or group therapy. She honestly needs help and must face this problem herself otherwise these questions will never stop. I know you mentioned this doesn't appear to be an option, anf maybe it isn't your job, but I. See your questions are much deeper than personal finance. I wish you the best and I really do admire your resolve to take care of your kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92ce680ef1738f5e0d4afad87c894b3d", "text": "You should consider using a lawyer as your agent. We once talked to one who was willing to act as our agent for a fixed fee. Not all attorneys can do it where we live, but there are plenty that can. We ended up going another route, but since then we have found a seller's agent that charges us a fixed fee of one thousand dollars (a great deal for us). We are using her again right now. It's all about the contract. Whatever you can legally negotiate is possible - which is yet another reason to consider finding a real estate attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab1b986aceb22af56dd4d63f241e7f25", "text": "\"Based on the information you gave, there are dozens if not hundreds of possible theories one could spin about the rental market. Sure, it's possible that there are no listings because rental units on this street are quickly snapped up. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are no listings because almost all the buildings on the street have been abandoned and, aside from this one property that someone is tying to sell you, the rest of the street is inhabited only by wild dogs and/or drug dealers. Or maybe the street is mostly owner-occupied, i.e. the properties are not being rented to anyone. Or maybe it's a commercial district. Or maybe craigslist isn't popular with people who own property on this street for whatever reason. Maybe Syracuse has a city ordinance that says property must be advertised in the newspaper and not on websites, for all I know. Or maybe you missed it because nobody in Syracuse calls it \"\"housing for rent\"\", they all call it \"\"apartments for rent\"\" or \"\"houses for rent\"\" or some local phrase. Or ... or ... or. Before I bought a property, I'd do more research than one search on one web site. Have you visited the property? I don't know how much you're preparing to invest, I have no idea what property prices are in Syracuse, but I'd guess it's at least tens of thousands of dollars. Surely worth making the drive to Syracuse to check it out before buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ae94110f133d0d5af7ba097cc0a9c03", "text": "For example: do I need a realtor, or can I do their job myself? In general in the United States the real estate agent fee is paid by the seller of the property. Their agent will be more than happy keep the entire fee if they don't have to split it with your agent. If you don't have an agent you will be missing somebody who can help you find the property that meets your needs. They can also help explain what the different parts of the contract mean and give you advice regarding making an offer. Do I need to pay for an inspection, or am I likely to save enough money from skipping it to cover potential problems that they would have caught? Inspections are optional. Though the amount you are risking is the entire value of the purchase. If the property has a problem in the foundation, or the septic system, or the plumbing or electrical the cost to fix the issue could render the purchase not worth doing. If you discover the problem a year later and you have to repair the house and have to find temporary housing for a few months, you will regret skipping the inspection. What are some of the ways I can cut expenses on closing costs? Is there any low-hanging fruit? You need to do your homework. When you are ready to purchase a property take good look at the good faith estimate and look at each item. Ask them what the expense covers. Push back against those that seem optional or excessive. Keep in mind that moving the closing date from the end of a month to the start of the next month only changes the timing those charges, it doesn't really save you money. Rolling the costs into the loan sound easy but you have to think about. It means that you will be paying interest on those charges for the life of the loan. It is good that you are starting to think about all the costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846c2a6f3828a150a5d171fa47615fac", "text": "Hey, to be a bit more personal, I'm in a similar situation (albeit houses near me are all like $300k for a shack). Don't rush into a house that will make you miserable, either because it's crap, or because it'll cost you an arm and a leg and your firstborn. It's perfectly fine to rent another year or two and build up your downpayment, credit history, and credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0bc2c7f8d74746d382d1369934cd53", "text": "I just did this with a potential tenant. She said she was in her spot 5 years and wanted to move to a nicer place. She talked about money, her jobs, her habits. It wasn't until my second conversation that I picked up she was nervous because this was a big move for her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19137c44685a4860a96f90c81b0b7213", "text": "\"Frankly, I was just listing off reasons that I and others might be pissed off at our landlords. Yeah, I've lived in student-focused housing too, and student rentals suck balls. Hell, that's the reason I wound up in the \"\"upscale\"\" city of Cambridge instead of living in the \"\"cheaper\"\" young-people areas of Allston or Brighton: because those places have had their rents pushed up by students way beyond what it's worth paying for a tiny, near-windowless, roach-infested hole built in the 1940s with rats running free in the streets. And yeah, I understand that those places suck so bad because many students are shitty tenants. But my real point was: my landlord doesn't provide me a place to live, he charges me ever-increasing rent for a place to live that he didn't build, maintains to the minimum required by the lease, and doesn't ever upgrade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7ad907dd87e12d49020535a15fb6995", "text": "In Phoenix you can get a two bedroom for $600/mo in an okay neighborhood if you know where/when to look, and a bit cheaper if you're willing to go a bit skeezier. Since we are talking minimum wage, you should be hopefully be able to find a job within biking distance (or, if you live in Tempe, take the free bus.) Have one person work mornings and the other work evenings/nights and you don't need daycare. (Other options: have them stay with a nearby family member, trade off watching the kids with other working families, or go for a three bedroom, grab a family member, and have someone work a 20-hr week instead.) Electricity averages to something like $100/mo over the course of the year (my high was about $150, low was around $40 in a two-bedroom.) So ~$700/mo for shelter, maybe $30/mo for a bus pass. That's $730/mo. I'm not saying it would be comfortable, but it can be done.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bbabfbd9e194fcd9a3fcd566cc2d9c1", "text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62e4e23c542eb03876d301f4dbd2584b", "text": "I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "396cf4f9e48af1691a4698047bf15b23", "text": "\"Seriously. I can't tell you how many times I hear this scenario: Kid graduates college; kid runs out and signs lease on apartment \"\"because that's what you do\"\"; kid complains that he's in financial trouble and can't make ends meet. Housemate sharing is most famously displayed in hit shows like Big Bang Theory or New Girl. They get a much nicer place with better furnishings for way less money. (However don't hook up with close neighbors or friends of other housemates, they do it for awkward laughs but it really results in awkward departure.) It's more financially responsible. It means the rest of your financial life will have more slack. And when you move, obviously, it's no big deal, you just give all the notice you can, and go to the next town and find another housemate share. I suspect a very significant factor is bringing home dates. Well, there's nothing sexy about taking your date to McDonalds because you can't afford anything more. See those shows... it works fine, you just have to be sensible about housemate choices. Pick housemates who view things the same way, and who themselves are invested in making the shared space attractive, and aren't going to mind some ...activities... once in awhile.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91fa8adecec3d85a8d239f24f373c472", "text": "I don't still have an account there, but ING Direct used to do that for you. They would set it so money would be freed up every 6 months but after a while you would have like 5-year ones to maximize returns.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
26050b77771bfe51c02e15dff29a58d3	Is laminate flooring an “Improvement” or “Depreciable Property”?	[ { "docid": "1bb1b778f82c223aa820fa2de28b54e9", "text": "\"Aesthetics aside, laminate floor is attached to the floor and as such is a part of the building. So you depreciate it with the building itself, similarly to the roof. I believe the IRS considers these permanently attached because the foam itself is permanently attached, and is a part of the installation. To the best of my knowledge, the only flooring that is considered as a separate unit of property is tucked-in carpet or carpet pads (typically installed in commercial buildings, not homes). Everything else you'll have to prove to be an independent separate unit of property. Technically, you can take the tucked in carpet, and move it elsewhere as-is and be able to install it there assuming the size fits. You cannot do it with the foam (at the very least you'll need a new foam cover in the new location since you cannot take the foam with you from the old one). That's the difference between a \"\"separate unit of property\"\" and \"\"part of the building\"\". Note that the regulations in this area have changed significantly starting of 2014, so you may want to talk to a professional.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "83ca3111536cc207caff9c31882d4746", "text": "Don't buy a house as an investment; buy it if/because it's the housing you want to live in. Don't improve a house as an investment; improve it if/because that makes it more comfortable for you to live in it. It's a minor miracle when a home improvement pays back anything close to what it cost you, unless there are specific things that really need to be done (or undone), or its design has serious cosmetic or functional issues that might drive away potential buyers. A bit of websearching will find you much more realistic estimates of typical/average payback on home improvements. Remember that contractors are tempted to overestimate this. (The contractor I've used, who seems to be fairly trustworthy, doesn't report much more than 60% for any of the common renovations. And yes, that's really 60%, not 160%.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a16cdeba56a7edbdb8277e7c90b16dce", "text": "\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf81a4ba6b9b12171f818ca09c08f24a", "text": "Yes. As a general case, insurance proceeds are repaying you for the damage that you have already incurred, not specifically for fixing anything. Since you have the legal right to sell the house as-is, without fixing it up at all, then you have the legal right to spend the insurance proceeds how you see fit. You can upgrade, downgrade, alter or replace your deck in any reasonable way... or do nothing. You should call your agent and make sure that there is nothing unusual in your policy, but this kind of homeowner decision - what materials or methods to fix damage to a home... is very normal and unremarkable, so your agent will probably reassure you and end the conversation without a second's thought.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55dec3450b7848dd6b84b36742de0378", "text": "There are at least three important aspectss missing from your equation. However they come with some uncertainty as one typically cannot tell the future performance. Appreciation of the rental units value. When comparing to the gain of any alternative investment an increasing value of the flat is a gain too. Increase of rent. Rents are typically adjusted either on a regular basis or at least when changing tennants. Calulation with a flat rent over 20 years is therefore way off. Tax deductions due to capital expenditures (i.e. mortgages), expenses for the upkeep and maintenance of the property, conserving and management, and so on. Obviously those are depending on your local legislation. There are multiple other issues to consider of course, e.g. inadvertant vacancy, which would not act in your favour.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa43e6541ae97a2db945bd35043d8199", "text": "\"Consider that there are some low-probability, high-impact risk factors involved with property management. For example, an old house has lead paint and may have illegal modifications, unknown to you, that pose some hazard. All of your \"\"pros\"\" are logical, and the cons are relatively minor. Just consult an attorney to look for potential landmines.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb65dd7f717ccf993086167319f91fac", "text": "You may be able to choose. As a small business, you can expense certain depreciable assets (section 179). But by choosing to depreciate the asset, you are also increasing the cost-basis of the property. Are you planning to sell the property in the next couple of years? Do you need a higher basis? Section 179 - Election to expense certain depreciable business assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09ebe300353b797c11573e51226490d1", "text": "Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4bc1e354155fce7135692aa703dd66", "text": "The first method is the correct one. You bought an asset worth of $1000 and you put it on your depreciation schedule. What it means is that you get to write off the $1000 over a certain period of time (and not at once, as you do with expenses). But the value you're writing off is the $1000 regardless of how much you've written off already. Assume you depreciate in straight line over 5 years (that's how you depreciate computers for Federal tax purposes, most states follow). For the simplicity of the calculation, assume you depreciate each year as a whole year (no mid-year/mid-quarter conventions). The calculation is like this: If you sell the computer - the proceeds above the adjusted basis amount are taxed as depreciation recapture up to the accumulated depreciation amount, and as capital gains above that. So in your case - book value is the adjusted basis at the end of the year (EOY), depreciation this year is the amount you depreciate in the year in question out of the total of the original cost, and the accumulated depreciation is the total depreciation including the current year. In Maryland they do not allow depreciating to $0, but rather down to 25% of the original cost, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you depreciate until your adjusted basis is $250. Depreciation rates are described here (page 5). For computers (except for large mainframes) you get 30% depreciation, with the last year probably a bit less due to the $250 adjusted basis limitation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27ad0e1d3743243190091ec762ea034c", "text": "Yes, but how does that compare to those with multiple houses? I build homes in the Seattle area for a living and one lifestyle who own several rentals... One thing them do is use equity for their 4 homes to purchase another.. Writing off the the interest paid on the loan(s)... I'm not saying it's a deduction normal people don't use... I'm just saying that it strikes me as a deduction that the wealthiest landlords use more with better results...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8609add874cab91d7b7d8b8d9ef26692", "text": "\"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it. Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet. Here is a schedule of the depreciation: * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m See, can't get much easier than that! Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows. You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a \"\"cash expense\"\" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project. Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations. I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions. Good Luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b325654181d951f0e841dc9a11bba72", "text": "Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35685f5a4c779a86e91eaad2dfae76a3", "text": "In general, you most definitely can. In some cases you must. However for each State you'll have to check whether you can choose how to depreciate. Many States require you to take the same depreciation as on the Federal schedule, including Sec. 179, others won't allow Sec. 179 at all. Specifically to PA, I haven't found any current guidance, but the rules from 2012 put PA in the bucket that requires you to take the same Sec. 179 on the State return as appears on your Federal return. If you elect to expense Section 179 Property for FIT purposes, you are required to expense the property for PIT purposes. However PA limit for Sec. 179 is $25K, so if your Federal deduction is larger - you can depreciate the rest. Check with a PA-licensed CPA or EA for a more reliable opinion, since I'm not a tax adviser. Just googled it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a730624c13434ec84e3a67975f3dd2a", "text": "First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband. On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691f379e386fc1183176cdae0adf3072", "text": "This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c210303c5cf705ea3e76196629d4bb36	I am looking for software to scan and read receipts	[ { "docid": "b4fb7c1fde6ac765d7261022789f77c5", "text": "NeatReceipts come up from time to time on woot.com. You can read up on the discussions which typically include several user testimonials at these past sales:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b941ec8a64dd8a7efd3690dab33cd768", "text": "Try the following apps/services: Receipt Bank (paid service, gathers paper receipts, scans them and processes the data), I've tested it, and it recognizing receipts very well, taking picture is very quick and easy, then you can upload the expenses into your accounting software by a click or automatically (e.g. FreeAgent), however the service it's a bit expensive. They've apps for Android and iPhone. Expentory (app and cloud-based service for capturing expense receipts on the move),", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e15395babdfd31c5708f353b8677cfe6", "text": "Scanning receipts is easy and any decent scanner will do a good job for you. The difficult part is the software that 'extracts' the data. Today there is no software that can do this really well because there is just too great a range of receipts (e.g. handwritten receipts, receipts in foreign languages, etc.). For this reason services like Shoeboxed (in the US) and Receipt Bank (in Europe) are very popular. (Added disclosure: Michael Wood's profile web site link indicates he is associated with Receipt Bank.)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b", "text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0507b77c98c3fcf6da71fa48b8d2b9c8", "text": "My bank will let me download credit card transactions directly into a personal finance program, and by assigning categories to stores I can get at least a rough overview of that sidd of things, and then adjust categories/splits when needed. Ditto checks. Most of my spending is covered by those. Doesn't help with cash transactions, though; if I want to capture those accurately I need to save receipts. There are ocr products which claim to help capture those; haven't tried them. Currently, since my spending is fairly stable, I'm mostly leaving those as unknown; that wouldn't work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11df2c61d4b972e329f7d49fe185d5b9", "text": "I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e55daa3355f5efdf6e80a5c3081f2a87", "text": "I've found it's just simpler to keep all of my receipts rather than debate which receipts to keep and which to throw away. I shove all my receipts from August in an envelope labeled August. Then, next year (12 months later) I shred the envelope. That way, if I see a bank error, need to find a receipt to do a return or warranty work, etc. I have all of them available for a year. Doing 1 envelope per month means I only have 12 envelopes at any time and I can shred an entire envelope without bothering to sort through receipts inside the envelope.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b67b218506ae7f85e3b2dc1ded7a4ddd", "text": "Maxime Impex offers the Best of Best Currency Counting Machine With Fake Note Detection which is very easy to installation, very user friendly, gives dimensional accuracy, Automatic Clear and Accurate counting. For more information, Visit the website: http://www.maximeimpex.in/ or call us at: 9891878746", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a471c4c58c07ed7ca866cff9414c8695", "text": "There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6", "text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1094d051d0888469d5c8772a8afb6621", "text": "Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "446d9213a8f4ea94a44d0e75bf123e7b", "text": "\"Mint is one alternative. If you want the raw data in CSV format, you can use \"\"Export\"\" feature under\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa", "text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93651496bbc8ad51ee18fb100f61dfbc", "text": "I used to use Quicken, but support for that has been suspended in the UK. I had started using Mvelopes, but support for that was suspended as well! What I use now is an IPhone app called IXpenseit to track my spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e399cca341c7328876cd896e39d0d1e", "text": "As a programmer, I expect the ATM and counter receipts to have an error and look hard for it. If I don't find the error I usually cram it in my pocket which is the same as throwing it away. I should keep them, but I also look at my online balances for almost all of my accounts several times a week so I (perhaps foolishly) don't worry about paper receipts too much. Maybe I should be a tester.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0b27816a5462ba66cd4ee31b70b3784", "text": "You would need additional information (login information [username and which service]) to fully make use of it though. I'm not sure how you would collect that? You could use such a service to build a dictionary for a dictionary attack I guess. It's only after this sort of attack that people start explicitly checking their passwords though? edit: From re-reading your comment I see you've already come up with the same limitations. To answer the question you actually asked, I would say you have no way of knowing these sha1 generators don't store the queries, just that it would be difficult to use the resulting dictionary. You would see which hashes are on your list versus the hashes on the leaked list. And then use those matches as a dictionary to attack someone's linkedin account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39efebb7c6e866b8c97268e70ed69f1e", "text": "I'm trying to organize my financial papers as well. I have a Fujitsu ScanSnap and it's tearing through my papers like a hot knife through butter (i.e. awesome). Here's how I'm addressing organizing the paper. I'm organizing mine a little bit organically. Here are the main parts: So anyway, all that to say that it's not necessary to organize the files to the hilt. If you want to, that's fine too, but it's a tradeoff: up-front organization for possibly some time savings later. The search function available is decreasing the advantage of organizing your files carefully. If throwing all of your files in a digital pile makes your skin crawl, then I won't force you otherwise, but I'm not worried about it for the time being. What you're doing with the other tracking sounds fine to me. Others may have different insights there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eee794d1fa47d5da44a6d71f612dcd0", "text": "Well, consult with a CPA, but I guess you don't have to pay taxes on 2012 with a correct accounting system since this is the money you are going to completely earn within 2013 so you can record it as future earning which is called deferred revenue or advance payments or unearned revenue.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fa08c78ada7de0ac02470be2064f0a29	Rental Properties: Is it good or bad that I can't find rental listings on that street?	[ { "docid": "3d59e380936884b0dcbf52229017722f", "text": "Finding Zero is the expected result of your Craigslist check. You will have to do a lot more research. A local agent can help you determine the number of days they stay on the market before they are rented. They can also help determine the spread between purchase costs and rental cost. You will also have to figure in the cost of hiring a local management company, if you don't want to drive to Syracuse every time the renter has a problem in the middle of the night, or in the middle of a blizzard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab1b986aceb22af56dd4d63f241e7f25", "text": "\"Based on the information you gave, there are dozens if not hundreds of possible theories one could spin about the rental market. Sure, it's possible that there are no listings because rental units on this street are quickly snapped up. On the other hand, it's also possible that there are no listings because almost all the buildings on the street have been abandoned and, aside from this one property that someone is tying to sell you, the rest of the street is inhabited only by wild dogs and/or drug dealers. Or maybe the street is mostly owner-occupied, i.e. the properties are not being rented to anyone. Or maybe it's a commercial district. Or maybe craigslist isn't popular with people who own property on this street for whatever reason. Maybe Syracuse has a city ordinance that says property must be advertised in the newspaper and not on websites, for all I know. Or maybe you missed it because nobody in Syracuse calls it \"\"housing for rent\"\", they all call it \"\"apartments for rent\"\" or \"\"houses for rent\"\" or some local phrase. Or ... or ... or. Before I bought a property, I'd do more research than one search on one web site. Have you visited the property? I don't know how much you're preparing to invest, I have no idea what property prices are in Syracuse, but I'd guess it's at least tens of thousands of dollars. Surely worth making the drive to Syracuse to check it out before buying.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "90b4e21519e477b91de1f7d8f1767f98", "text": "NYC ban is not the same as the state wide ban. Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between a state and a city. Also, you might find this interesting as once again your completely and fucking utterly wrong : https://www.google.com/amp/reason.com/blog/2017/01/02/despite-ban-new-york-city-had-more-airbn/amp Now, let's imagine a world where you're actually right, and NYC fines and policing some how stopped people from listing their places; this is still one single city amongst tens of thousands where it's illegal, yet there are millions of listings in total in those cities. So your argument is as dumb as a flat earthier or climate denier... Your one example doesn't event back you up, and even if it did it's counters to tens of thousands of example that prove you're wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c34294599499f302caf373d1f6b3610", "text": "Anecdotally, we recently bought a house in a really hot labor market. Our agent told us that she has a lot of people who are looking to sell (enough to start working with an agent) but are refusing to list their houses because the prices keep going up. She is begging them to list but they keep waiting, driving up prices even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b35e3d4c7fd82ef6e3ecfe25533e072", "text": "I am a realtor. For our rental business, we use a service that offers a background check. It costs us about $25, and it is passed along in the form of an application fee. I suggest you contact a local real estate agent who you know does rentals. Have a conversation about what you are doing, and see if they will help process the application for you, for a fee of course. If you are truly concerned about your safety (The text you wrote can either read as true concern or sarcasm. Maybe we are really in a wild country?) It's worth even a couple hundred bucks to screen out a potential bad roommate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f0d259305893efee065306911adb1f5", "text": "\"A quick online search for \"\"disadvantages of defence housing australia investment properties\"\" turns up a several articles that list a few possible disadvantages. I can't vouch for these personally because I'm not familiar with the Australian rental market, but they may all be things to keep in mind. I quote verbatim where indicated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85fb7e40d6726fddd153b282009a0666", "text": "Sounds like you have a nice rental on your hands, honestly, if it's blue-collar-ish material. Not too expensive for a rental. Is the rental market fairly strong there? You're probably looking at $400-$500 per month income after you pay everybody. (My property manager takes 10% of gross rents and she would inspect the property quarterly for me.) I'd take as many of those as I can get, though if I had ten of them I could be set for the rest of my life. :) That way you can offset any losses you might incur by selling now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77b59558c9d957cfd8149d31f8d1c34c", "text": "Disadvantage is that tenant could sue you for something, and in an unfavorable judgement they would have access to your house as property to possess. You could lose the house. Even if you make an LLC to hold the house, they'll either sue you or the LLC and either way you could lose the house. This might be why the landlord is moving to Florida where their house cannot be possessed in a judgement because of the state's strong homestead exemption ;)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "111f2cea2838b7e7938d9cf6d03b3316", "text": "Check out the property websites to get an idea of how much, the property in question, could yield as rent. Most give a range and you can get a good idea of it. Just one example from zoopla. Likewise you can refer mouseprice or rightmove and get yourself an idea. Property websites do a lot of data crunching to do an update, but their figure is only a guide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3825f236f55ce6c0cc79c0570948647", "text": "If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular). So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings. Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.). You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance. I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering. In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations. But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too. You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors. Does noise bother you? Conversely, are you noisy? In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area. If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b7f5a8f33f6c94d368f633b3820abe", "text": "\"People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods. It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly \"\"the neighborhood is pretty bad.\"\" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass. Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change. (And, \"\"welcome, stranger\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a30a07893c7f5127ae40ca9d2e3ee11", "text": "I think it would be good to familiarize yourself with the market in the subject building's area and convey that knowledge. What is a typical cap rate for the area? Comparable sales? Any new employers coming into the area that affect the local economy in a positive way?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d8dbc916b53c82484268b8dbf96b1fb", "text": "Sure! Anything that affects the balance of supply and demand could cause rent prices to fall. I'll betcha rent prices in Wilmington, Ohio collapsed when the biggest employer, DHL, shut down. An economic depression of any sort would cause people to substitute expensive rentals for cheaper ones, putting downward pressure on rents. It would also cause people to double up or move in with family, decreasing demand for rentals. Anything that makes buying a house cheaper will actually make rents lower, too, because more people will buy houses when houses get cheaper... those people are moving out of rentals, thus decreasing demand for rentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "999b40cde6e55b3adddd1185da7fddc0", "text": "\"Many Web sites and articles warn against buying former rental cars, because people renting these cars often mistreat them. Many of those are also written by unqualified individuals for publication on blog farms and encourage all sorts of odious financial practices. That's not even considering the interests of who is paying to advertise on said blogs-- I'm sure their interests align with making sure you always pay top dollar for a new car. Because those icky used ones are so mistreated! Never trust financial advice published on the internet (or in the media, for that matter). Edit: One caveat on further thought-- never, never buy used vehicles from government auctions (impounds, asset seizures, old police cars, etc). Anybody irresponsible enough to go to jail or abandon their car long enough to lose their assets likely isn't a responsible owner of such, and cops and crooks alike do absolutely beat the snot out of police cars. When it comes to government-owned vehicles (police cars, schoolbuses) municipal governments are notoriously stingy and will squeeze every last minute of use out of them before putting them on the market. If you're buying a government vehicle, assume it's being sold because it has intractable problems. But from a financial point of view, I notice that rental agencies sell cars within the first two years, during the time when they depreciate the most. Bingo. I figure many large rental companies will have mathematicians who calculate the best time to sell. Does the fact that they sell the car mean during this time suggest that they know the car's cost of further maintenance or other costs will be higher? Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? It doesn't take a PhD to realize it's bad for business if your model revolves around renting out 1970s rustbuckets that run the risk of breaking down and leaving customers stranded in inopportune or dangerous places. Uhaul in particular has a terrible reputation for this, and it shows in the condition of their trucks-- relics of the 90s, all of them. Uber won't let you drive for them if your car is older than 7-10 years for the same reasons. Yes, as a car ages, the chance of having to make repairs increases. Rental agencies are in the business of renting vehicles, not running service centers and garages. It's more aligned with their core business model to just dispose of cars once they've squeezed the most reliable years out of them and amortize the vehicles' depreciation across the tax deductions and fleet pricing they enjoy when buying new ones. This gets them out of the service game and lets them focus on their core business-- procurement and rental. There's no calculated \"\"time-to-lemon\"\" that they're trying to skirt here; they're just trying to avoid having to make any repairs whatsoever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2d4a7f88d2eb35a5c97345fe686b7ca", "text": "\"Okay so I am going to break this answer into a couple sections: Okay so first things first. Did you get a good deal? This is challenging to answer for a number of reasons. First, a good deal is relative to the buyers goals. If you're attempting to buy an asset that provides passive income then maybe you met your goal and got a good deal. If you're attempting to buy an asset that provides long term growth, and you purchased above market (I'm speculating of course) then you may have made a bad deal. So how do you determine if you got a good deal? Does your \"\"Gross Rental Multiplier\"\" equal that or is less than that of the average GRM in your area. The lower the better. So how do you use the GRM to determine if you're getting a good deal? Divide your purchase price by the average city (or area) GRM and that will tell you what you should be getting annually in rent. You can also use the GRM to determine if a future purchase is over or under priced. Just replace purchase price with asking price. Alright, so these are the tools you can use to decide if you made a bad business deal or not. There are many ways to skin a cat so to speak. These are the tools I use BEFORE I purchase a home. Many people are penny wise and pound foolish. Take your time when making large purchases. It's OKAY to say PASS. Okay next thing is this new purchase you're looking at. The number one rule when working a franchise is you don't open a second store until you have a perfect working model to go off of. If you've never had to file a tax return for your current rental. Then you need to wait. If you've never read your local and state rental laws. Then you need to WAIT. If you've never had to leave an event early, wake up in the middle of the night, or get a text while you're on a date from one of your tenants. THEN YOU NEED TO WAIT. Give it a year or two. Just learn the unknown about rental properties. Use your first as your test bed. It's WAY more cheaper then if you make a bad mistake and roll it over multiple properties. Finally I will leave you with this. No one on this site, myself included, knows everything there is to know about real estate. Anyone that claims they do, send their ass packing. This is a complex COMPLEX business. There is always something to learn and if you don't have the passion to continue learning then hand it off to someone who does. There is tax law, rental law, city repair law, contract law and this doesn't even include the stuff that makes you money, like knowing how to leverage low or no money down loans. Please take some time and go out and learn. Good luck! -AR\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0cd7730d095a4ebac6e95aabb354f31", "text": "Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals. Buying an investment property is a long term investment. A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access. If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work. This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls. Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits. It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations. You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property. It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework. You must know the area you are investing very well. Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75611f7d7709881a3c08bad29d9ebe60", "text": "The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan. And because you do have such a large degree of financial security, you have a lot of options that could be very appealing - every low paying but desirable/hard-to-get job is open to you. You can pursue your interests, even if they barely pay minimum wage, and doing so may help you ease into your new life easier than simply retiring at such a young age [when most of your peers will be heavy into their careers]. So, that is my strongest piece of advice - work now, while you're young and have motivation, so that you can dial back later. This will be much easier than the other way around. As for where you should invest your money in, look on this site for investing questions, and ultimately with that amount of money - I suggest you hire a paid advisor, who works based on an hourly consultation fee, rather than a % management fee. They can give you much more directed advice than the internet (though you should learn it yourself as well, because that will give you the best piece of mind that you aren't being taken advantage of).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8aad2a4956778a6e184907adfc4e05aa	How are ADRs priced?	[ { "docid": "d7c498aeb47a6ff89bd62f0388e5f896", "text": "Academic research into ADRs seems to suggest that pairs-trading ADRs and their underlying shares reveals that there certainly are arbitrage opportunities, but that in most (but not all cases) such opportunities are quickly taken care of by the market. (See this article for the mexican case, the introduction has a list of other articles you could read on the subject). In some cases parity doesn't seem to be reached, which may have to do with transaction costs, the risk of transacting in a foreign market, as well as administrative & legal concerns that can affect the direct holder of a foreign share but don't impact the ADR holder (since those risks and costs are borne by the institution, which presumably has a better idea of how to manage such risks and costs). It's also worth pointing out that there are almost always arbitrage opportunities that get snapped up quickly: the law of one price doesn't apply for very short time-frames, just that if you're not an expert in that particular domain of the market, it might as well be a law since you won't see the arbitrage opportunities fast enough. That is to say, there are always opportunities for arbitrage with ADRs but chances are YOU won't be able to take advantage of it (In the Mexican case, the price divergence seems to have an average half-life of ~3 days). Some price divergence might be expected: ADR holders shouldn't be expected to know as much about the foreign market as the typical foreign share holder, and that uncertainty may also cause some divergence. There does seem to be some opportunity for arbitrage doing what you suggest in markets where it is not legally possible to short shares, but that likely is the value added from being able to short a share that belongs to a market where you can't do that.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0a73b83ef85d6ca73218ea60b4779a1a", "text": "\"The OP does not explain \"\"what we pay for processing the transaction (cost of debiting the customer)\"\". Who exactly do you pay? Someone else, or your own employees/contractors? I will assume that $0.10 is paid to your own employees. Dr $10cash from money people give you Cr $10 liability to them because it is their money in your accounts. Dr $0.10 cash payment of paycheques or supplier invoices Cr $0.10 income statement Operating Eexpense Dr 0.20 liability to depositors for fees they pay, resulting in $9.80 remaining liability for their money you still have. Cr 0.20 income statement Fee Revenues\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ede1bfc19a1ebc6de5dec45e802bfd", "text": "\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bffdd2b0003ce358a8fc2bc569131763", "text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9afb87d97781f767e9eabff3e0151620", "text": "When someone charges, it means that person fix the price you pay. Australia is part of the Indonesian continent. It is an island in the South Pacific ocean. In the price of an item, you include the shipping cost. It is more expensive by plane because the cost of the kerozen is higher than the cost of diesel for ships. Accident can happen, so you have to include in price the cost of the insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd66ed1d90d3a1b1ed76cbf6bd7a73e4", "text": "\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fafc56dda600d9877d4682204c7108a", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71ec30d3609296f94f979a175af9cd19", "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:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e59a5631dd56e3ef6ee6e5ed64fb044", "text": "There are several ways that the issuers profit from CFDs. If the broker has trades on both sides (buy and sell) they can net the volumes off against each other and profit off the spread whilst using the posted margins to cover p&l from both sides. Because settlement for most securities is not on the same day that the order is placed they can also buy the security with no intention of taking delivery and simply sell it off at the end of day to pass delivery on to someone else. Here again they profit from the spread and that their volumes give them really low commissions so their costs are much lower than the value of the spread. If they have to do this rather than netting the position out the spreads will be wider. Sometimes that may be forced to buy the security outright but that is rare and the spreads will be even wider so that they can make a decent profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ac3f7737b4923500e318bf9888f039a", "text": "Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5b49a3a8fa4b6fa8cd2bfec13bd22e7", "text": "\"There are basically two different markets for ADRs and ordinary shares. 1) The American market, 2) the \"\"local\"\" market. The following is not true for most stocks in \"\"developed\"\" markets. But it is often true that the American market (for ADRs) is far more liquid than the local market for ordinary shares of a developing country. For instance, there was a time when the ADRs of Telmex (Telefonos of Mexico) was the fifth most traded stock in the world, after Exxon (before its merger with Mobil), IBM, Microsoft, and A T&T, meaning that it was easy to trade with low fees on the NYSE. It was much harder and slower to buy the local shares of Telmex in Mexico, on the Mexican exchange. Also, the accompanying currency transactions were harder to execute with the ord, because you have to settle in local currency and pay an FX commission. With the ADR, the exchange rate is \"\"built\"\" into the (dollar) price, and you settle in dollars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6150cd134f4e7c7e266d5fe0ce92ef87", "text": "The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has. There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b25f5bafb3d66343aac4841d554e5e52", "text": "The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e424bb3b0e7f90e3c589ee4b3890f1e", "text": "\"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c37c24f30645f6131887178f02722dc", "text": "FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3", "text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
435b01ffbc9fee7df3a3130343e30963	Do real nappies (reusable / cloth diapers) really save money?	[ { "docid": "3dbc68afd85e366aacf4516d65e70965", "text": "I only used disposable diapers for my baby's first month. However, I now use half disposable diapers (for part-time daycare) and half cloth. My son is now 1 year and during a normal weekday, I go through 4 disposable diapers and 3-4 cloth diapers (this count includes a double thick cloth diaper for night). On the weekend, I use about 7-8 cloth diapers a day. For disposable, I buy Costco's Kirkland brand diapers which gives me about 200 diapers for $50. I tend to go through one pack every other month. For cloth, I bought FuzziBunz One-Size Diapers. These are pretty expensive diapers (about $19/each) but I wanted ones that would last over multiple children (I chose these over the BumGenius because I thought snaps would last longer than velcro). I bought 24 new cloth diapers which means I wash diapers every 2-3 days. A couple of weeks ago I totaled up my receipts for cloth and disposable diapers and determined that I will recoup my diaper costs at around 16 months of part-time use. Notes:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e39d964a72ab4b0c77e3f4cb88e45464", "text": "I just remembered a blog post at CashMoneyLife - Cloth Diapers vs. Disposable Diapers. I had come across it a little while after posting my answer to a question at moms4mom.com - What can I expect to spend monthly on disposable diapers? And what do/did you spend? and I had linked to it from there, too, since it contained some information about disposable diapers. However, since you're asking about real nappies, i.e. cloth diapers, it is also relevant to your question, since it was discussing both kinds of diapers. Here are some choice excerpts from the CashMoneyLife post: ... The beauty of cloth diapers is that while the upfront cost is much higher, the ongoing cost is much lower. Once you purchase them you are only paying for laundry detergent and the energy to wash/dry them. (Note: I've also known people who have passed along cloth diapers to other family members or bought/sold them on Craigslist, both of which could be a cheaper option if you are willing to do either). ... Which is better? I think they are both great and I encourage you to try cloth if you have young children. The cost and environmental benefits will make it worth your while. Then use disposable diapers for what they were intended for: a convenience. There are also some excellent comments following the post by readers who have also used cloth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5739a3e62d265014e71fcd2d7c338692", "text": "\"I don't think they do. And here's why. If you don't want your child to get skin irritation, you need to watch closely and change the \"\"nappy\"\" right when it got wet. For newborns it means like every 2 hours. It creates a big pile of laundry, but the main thing — additional burden on mother. So, even if you save a little on diapers, you will spend that on water+electricity bill + comforting the mother more often than you would otherwise.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f5ffa4e78eb4c0c796b41dd65e42056c", "text": "This. People say on Reddit pretty often 'Oh, you should buy a new fridge to save your electric bill'. Meanwhile, old fridges are built like tanks. You will never make up the cost of electricity when you factor in longevity and cost to purchase a new fridge, and I'm sure the manufacturing process and pollution from making a new fridge is worse then continuing to use a functioning one. The same holds true for other appliances as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca05f3e91ae3bb2e983ad4512e275658", "text": "sure it is they are saving on distribution and paper costs so they pass the savings onto you with increased costs. so what it is a joy to read. thats also a little less than half the price of my cable. thats retarded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d04ea03f85539b6333e362dd052c945c", "text": "I agree with Rich Seller. Avoiding a trip to the store is a benefit. Not only do you save the time and hassle, but there's real money saved if a car trip is avoided: I maintain a spreadsheet for all of my car expenses – depreciation, maintenance, insurance, license & registration, gas, etc. Combined with starting & ending odometer readings for the year, I can see exactly what it costs me to drive one kilometre. Granted, some costs are fixed simply by virtue of having the car, but gasoline is a variable cost avoided when a trip is avoided.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69db43cc647239fed2015435995c4715", "text": "I edited in the total annual out of pocket for each level to help illustrate what's going on. Your question makes sense, of course, but it's less a matter of afford vs an attempt to save. The way these plans work is to allow some choice based on your past experience. I can afford any option, but knowing the number of visits we have had in the past, the lowest cost option has the highest premium. A young couple who hardly sees a doctor may choose the highest deductible, risking the potential $3434 extra they may pay in a bad year for the savings of $1016. Personally, I'd not be able to guess accurately enough to benefit from the middle choices, and can see the two extremes being picked most often.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3943b7471b6efa9074161cf5168f967", "text": "Smart. Add in daily necessities like toothpaste, disposable razors and toilet paper and you've got Walmart and Costco by the balls. Most people are spending their money on consumables and are much more conservative these days. If I were them I'd stick to food and the daily needs and not even bother with clothing and furniture and such. Keep it simple I think. In and out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75499f0a26a8cd8961d79b389d1190d3", "text": "My brother's wife does some pretty intense couponing. She recently posted on facebook when she bought about $300 worth of items for $30. It was almost all toiletries and food that her family uses regularly, though there were some items they've now got 3 months supply of. She told me that it is a pain to track and exploit all of the different coupons/discounts but the savings help to offset the cost of homeschooling 4 children.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e61c8109a1e48bc8a6820e7f65ba1659", "text": "They are certainly only suggesting that the money you pay to recycle the bulbs is tax deductible as a donation, assuming that they are indeed a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Donations of goods are only deductible at fair market value. Light bulbs that no longer light up have no market value, so only the payment could possibly be deductible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ea8de93801a479a06996ad0f52242d", "text": "The solar roof is more expensive until you factor in that you get free electricity for life after it's installed. That power has value. It reduces your electric bill. If all you want is to cover your house, then use a tarp.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ec8530127342d42b5dea70184732c4", "text": "Buy a lot of best quality of products. We are happy to help you. Just visit Budget Closeouts and order any item you love to get it on your doorstep. We have many categorized items of General Merchandise for personal uses, daily uses, apparel, fashioned clothing, watches, kitchen accessories. You can purchase toys and much more for your infant. There is a branding clothing including towel and other wear. New fashioned and artificial jewelry for women available at our site at low cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac1091500385e7b5393aacd4993fd8ab", "text": "I know that for me personally, if I buy that giant box of Goldfish instead of the bags, it doesn't mean I'm saving money... just eating a lot more Goldfish. The trick, I think, to buying in bulk is to make sure that you're not consuming in bulk. You're not likely to go through more dishwasher detergent just because you bought the big bottle, but you may find the kids are eating a lot more fruit snacks, or you're throwing away half of that huge bag of baby carrots that went bad, because you bought in bulk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d049c3fba72110cdabe418e0bc3a78ed", "text": "For a while I tried shopping multiple grocery stores, checking fliers each week from three different stores and then making the trip to all three stores to save ten cents on each item. After a couple months, I decided it just wasn't worth it. So, I picked my favorite store. I shop once a week, after reviewing the flier and making a list. I clip coupons and try to only buy what's on my list. (I confess that coupons sometimes get me to buy a brand or item I wouldn't have otherwise... it's my weakness!) The biggest place that we save money though, is by paying attention to meat prices. I know that chicken and pork go on sale for $1.99/lb every 4 to 6 weeks at my grocery store. When it does, I buy a enough to last until the next sale, and freeze it in single-meal portions. Steak and fish are special treats, but on the rare occasion that they're less than $4/lb, I'll buy those. We also try to limit our meat consumption to every-other-day. It's not worth it for me to obsess over the price of ketchup that I buy twice a year, but on expensive items like meat, and items we use daily, I become familiar with their regular prices and sale prices, and buy extra when it's on sale. If, like me, you don't have room in your brain to keep track of the prices of everything, stick with the things you spend the most on, either because they're expensive, or you buy a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7d168ed78c1c948aafc5d6811738ca9", "text": "New clothes isn't exactly an emergency expense :) so I would strongly suggest that you budget for it on a monthly basis. This doesn't mean you have to go spend the money every month, just put a reasonable amount of money into the clothes budget/savings every month and when you need a new shirt or two, take the money out of the saved money and go shopping. If you buy a piece or two of good quality clothing at a time you'd also not run into the situation where all your clothes fall apart at the same time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4753cca35c315b3f8d6cff278a55bfe", "text": "By simplifying my hobbies, I have more time for money-saving activities such as researching deals, creating an effective coupon-clipping system, and making more foods from scratch (which doubles as entertainment since I enjoy it). When I run frantically from activity to activity, I tend to mindlessly throw away more money, too. By living more intentionally, I think about my purchases more as well. On the simplifying note, never underestimate the power of less stuff in terms of being able to fit into a smaller home. That leads to less space to heat and cool, which leads to savings. Everyone has their comfort level with less, of course, and some people love space. There are just trade-offs to more stuff.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40d286a9dc6a851f6aaffc86d1ef4c92", "text": "With our “Budget Closeouts” you can save a lot of money as we are agents and Buy closeout Apparel have a more affordable Towels and Bath items than other closeout sources. All products are below general costs. Purchase a few plenty and get even larger discounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42ebc3b2703cae553c4ddb406f74019b", "text": "You are right, and it's 40 cents per liter, not gallon as I originally wrote. After 60 liters per month, it goes up to 70 cents per liter. It's around 90 cents per liter right now where I am in the US. Like you said, still cheap compared to the rest of the world ($1 per liter in India, $1.90 per liter in Britain).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
39db62766100f3aabf53ee36e72ffe09	What is the different between one company's two OTCMKTS symbols?	[ { "docid": "ddfeea5f67f033d68493547c64961b03", "text": "I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "21aefc5868fa6f7f893faf0d7c957cf3", "text": "\"The change is generally known as the Options Symbology Initiative (or \"\"OSI\"\") and there is a highly comprehensive guide to what occurred here. The basic gist of what occurred was a shift FROM: A coded system in which a shorter (3 to 5 letter symbol) could be used, but the symbols required a data source to determine what they meant. MSQ AD used to be a MSFT Jan 20 option, but you had to look up MSQ in a table to know that. TO: A system in which much longer symbols are needed, but they contain all the information required to identify a unique option: DELL 4.000 C 5/16/2010 isn't easy to type, but once you know how to read it, it's easy to see that it's an option on DELL, expiring on May 16th 2010, is a call (rather than a put,) and has a strike price of 4. As to why they did it, there are a number of benefits, but most important reason is this one: they were running out of symbols. The number of permutations of 3-5 letter symbols had been exceeded by the number of options that had been listed, resulting in the need to \"\"recycle\"\" symbols. This meant that a current option symbol would be the same as an old one, in some cases on a different stock, which was wreaking havoc on historical data.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77531483389b020e183eed6d71d265e9", "text": "MKC is non-voting stock, MKC/V is voting stock. Ofter times you'll see two or more stock symbols for a company. These usually reflect different classes of stocks. For example, voting vs. non-voting (as in this case) or preferred vs non-preferred stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf4513d6e76ed2e63e58c4b9760adbe", "text": "On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb660aaba77a61eab011bdf138688b57", "text": "Some platforms/brokers have HTB indication for a stock symbol, meaning Hard To Borrow. That usually means you can't sell it short at the moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b69527e2707e44cc701c57fc239b10a", "text": "\"It's a form of debt issued by the United States Treasury. As the name implies, a 10-year note is held for 10 years (after which you get the face value in cash), and it pays interest twice per year. It's being used in the calculator to stand for a readily available, medium-term, nearly risk-free investment, as a means of \"\"discounting\"\" the value that the company gains. The explanation for why the discounting is done can be found on the page you linked. As a Canadian you could use the yield of comparable Canadian treasury securities as quoted by Bank of Canada (which seem to have had the bottom fall out since the new year), although I don't suppose American notes would be hard for a Canadian investor to come by, so if you wanted to be conservative you could use the US figure as long as it's higher.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "056616fe4ed22a918ccb044818b179fa", "text": "Do u mean like a company cafeteria/dining area within the building that runs its own numbers? Or a recent acquisition that still functions as its own entity? I think Google is a great example in general as it owns a lot of smaller companies. Just some ideas, hope it helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5e070140e741eeb2fd1c0040fe4f624", "text": "\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddcc7257e95751a370cd19fbef3d16d5", "text": "The OTC market is a marketplace, the location it definitely relied on the purchaser marketplace. The OTC market is mostly used to exchange bonds among the two occasions and all this technique are executed by way of manner of the third celebration. They are able to also be used to alternate equity, such because of the OTC QX and purple marketplaces within the USA. The minamargroup is the Florida, USA situated agency, who elements their purchase investor relation with to present organization into to make new ones. OTC way it's far a protection traded in some context other, changing between parties or groups inclusive of New York Stock trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3befa06aff1f9bdd4c44321420a6f7d0", "text": "Options - yes we can :) Options tickers on Yahoo! Finance will be displayed as per new options symbology announced by OCC. The basic parts of new option symbol are: Root symbol + Expiration Year(yy)+ Expiration Month(mm)+ Expiration Day(dd) + Call/Put Indicator (C or P) + Strike price Ex.: AAPL January 19 2013, Put 615 would be AAPL130119P00615000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL130119P00615000&ql=1 Futures - yes as well (: Ex.: 6A.M12.E would be 6AM12.CME using Yahoo Finance symbology. (simple as that, try it out) Get your major futures symbols from here: http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/exchange.html?e=CME", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d8dbc7258bcc02dbd72eb71e62cbbe", "text": "There isn't a single universal way to reference a stock, there are 4 major identifiers with many different flavours of exchange ticker (see xkcd:Standards) I believe CUSIPs and ISINs represent a specific security rather than a specific listed instrument. This means you can have two listed instruments with one ISIN but different SEDOLs because they are listed in different places. The difference is subtle but causes problems with settlement Specifically on your question (sorry I got sidetracked) take a look at CQS Symbol convention to see what everything means", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e42588337b533431d5839a751b472ca7", "text": "You typically need to specify that you want the GTC order to be working during the Extended hours session. I trade on TD Ameritrade's Thinkorswim platform, and you can select DAY, GTC, EXT or GTC_EXT. So in your case, you would select GTC_EXT.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40c6ef0fe29f0aed842b95486d0fc38f", "text": "Maybe, I'm confused too...but I would have to disagree, the numbers wouldn't be the same. Also, they are not the same thing. * NOA = Operating assets - Operating Liabilities * IC = Equity + Debt Example: Company has $1000 Equity, $1000 Debt, $2000 Assets * Company's NOA is $1000 * Company's IC is $2000", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6202cea72db1be8663b67a31dba05994", "text": "Wikipedia makes no mention of this whatsoever; only that they are direct competitors and they have different CEOs. Also both companies have multiple factories, not one that they somehow share. Is it possible you experienced a mild head injury sometime this morning?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bc73d53e445d4e06f80d11061b421f0", "text": "There are a few differences:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a296326b2f83db170024fd7c587c7326", "text": "Just because it gets delisted from one of the big boards doesn't mean it can't trade over the counter. For example GM went OTC under the ticker MTLQQ for a while. That being said, just because the stock is trading over the counter doesn't mean it has any real long term value.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
933179814ea725f8194c2ca469af0808	what is a mortgage gift exchange?	[ { "docid": "8f364aab021845547452178a44d83fa4", "text": "The issue is that the lender used two peoples income, debts, and credit history to loan both of you money to purchase a house. The only way to get a person off the loan, is to get a new loan via refinancing. The new loan will then be based on the income, debt, and credit history of one person. There is no paperwork you can sign, or the ex-spouse can sign, that will force the original lender to remove somebody from the loan. There is one way that a exchange of money between the two of you could work: The ex-spouse will have to sign paperwork to prove that it is not a loan that you will have to payback. I picked the number 20K for a reason. If the amount of the payment is above 14K they will have to document for the IRS that this is a gift, and the amount above 14K will be counted as part of their estate when they die. If the amount of the payment is less than 14K they don't even have to tell the IRS. If the ex-souse has remarried or you have remarried the multiple payments can be constructed to exceed the 14K limit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16e013dd52ed1d3c03a5c5567b83da8c", "text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f", "text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13579414bd19097f500ef210e2dfd057", "text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e918d6079515b710674ee738486d37a6", "text": "\"What if there were no mortgage, and you gave the friend the house? They are getting the house' value. In your case the discount from market value is their instant profit. We often think of our house in terms of the equity we have, plus the mortgage. Equity therefore is what's left after the mortgage is paid off, if you sell the house. In your question, you are, in effect, \"\"giving all equity to your friend. Where else would you imagine it goes?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a44496c2bd1e2232797a0e4fd167338", "text": "\"Definitely consult a lawyer. Mortgages are highly regulated now, and regardless of how familiar borrower & lender are, the standard contract will be extremely long. (at least in the US) There are no \"\"friends and/or family\"\" exceptions. If the contract does not conform to regulations, it may be invalid, and all the money you lent could simply evaporate since it was the borrower who actually bought the house, and it's the loan contract that's rendered null & void; in that case, it may be better to simply donate the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acbeb847e1e665549107377e72fc6862", "text": "\"If you need to transfer a larger amount than the $14K/person/person limit, one accepted workaround is to structure it as a loan, then gift the payments over the duration of the loan. There are \"\"intra-family mortgage\"\" companies which specialize in setting up this kind of transaction. Note that this doesn't allow you to give more without penalty, it just lets you transfer the actual cash earlier, in exchange for some bookkeeping overhead and some fees for the legal processing and mortgage registration.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6564b849fddb495c63f688e149b585d0", "text": "Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f469e2fa5ef685010cd4b8febf2dc799", "text": "In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c542f973a653d2f26ee668515fa19193", "text": "An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e115ac713a46e238a12376ba07844d", "text": "\"It would have to be made as a \"\"gift\"\", and then the return would be a \"\"gift\"\" back to you, because you're not allowed to use a loan for a down payment. I see some problems, but different ones than you do: One more question: is the market really hot right now? It was quite cold for the last few years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235844a2d25fb6628b055a1f80b77c6c", "text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd08117069dd39c471f4e395776830a6", "text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea5e67cf8ae3be48ce21e16b75727a24", "text": "Answering the first part, it is basically a home equity loan. You are taking a loan out against available equity in your house. It generally is at a higher interest rate than what you would get on your first mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8d5c327ce6e719e6a82fda9724475de", "text": "While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd865e96fd492e3189f843200cf4f59a", "text": "Lenders pay attention to where your down payment money comes from. If they see a large transfer of money into your bank account within about a year before your purchase, this WILL cause an issue for you. Down payments are not just there to make the principal smaller; they are primarily used as an underwriting data-point to assess your quality as a borrower. If you take the money as loan, it will count against your credit worthiness. If you take the money as a gift, it will raise some other red flags. All of this is done for a reason: if you can't get a down payment, you are a higher credit risk (poor discipline, lack of consistent income), even if you can (currently) pay the monthly cost of a mortgage. (PS - The cost of home ownership is much higher than the monthly mortgage payment.) Will all this mean you WON'T get a loan? Of course not. You can almost always get SOME loan. But it will likely be at a higher rate than you otherwise would qualify for if you just waited a little bit and saved money for a down payment. (Another option: cheaper house.) EDIT: The below comments provide examples where gifts were/are NOT a problem. My experience from buying a house just a few years ago (and my several friends who bought house in the same period, some with family gifts and some without) is that it IS an issue. Your best bet is to TALK, IN PERSON with an actual mortgage broker in your area who can go through the options with you, and the downsides to various approaches.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6d3f8065db23cfea06bdb6040233857", "text": "Limited transactions: what's to stop a firm from having thousands of bank accounts to avoid the limit. This of course is costly. Tax on transactions: some trades are worth $00.001 and some are $190,000. They shouldn't be taxed the same. Both increase costs of capital and literally everyone in America pays for it. Investment is more expensive. And our beautiful liquid market is no longer as efficient and can no longer responds as quickly to market forces. Investors now go to other foreign markets that don't limit or charge for transactions. Both plans will cost the economy billions of dollars and for what? So some computers don't trade almost instantaneously? Exactly why is that a problem other than class warfare? A lot of the risks that people have about flash crashes have been mitigated with better algorithms and rules.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2db74c50d5b87c8676498a89830ca975	How to protect a Stock you still want to own from a downturn?	[ { "docid": "f82ed815f2a2c4fc305055e8b08f73ee", "text": "\"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \"\"manual\"\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93933ff94c2883d247b8dcc890f75855", "text": "Adding on to all the fine answers, you can consider selling a covered call. You will have to own a minimum of 100 shares. It will offer a bit of protection, but limit your upside. If your confident long term, but expect a broader market pull back then a covered call might give you that small protection your looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ec72e41d8c2cc1600d76f6c3851f91f", "text": "\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d70152525800602decbf682eefed81ff", "text": "\"Remind yourself that markets recover, usually within a few years. If you believe this and can remind yourself of this, you will be able to see the down cycles of the market as an opportunity to buy stock \"\"on sale\"\". No one knows the future, so many people have found investing on a regular schedule to be helpful. By putting in the same amount of money each period, you will end up buying fewer shares when the market is up, and more when it is down. As long as your time horizon is appropriate, you should be able to wait out the ups and downs. Stocks are volatile by their very nature, so if you find that you are very concerned by this, you might want to consider whether you should adjust the amount of risk in your investments, since over time, most people lose money by trying to \"\"time\"\" the market. However, if your investment goals and requirements haven't changed, there likely isn't any need to change the types of assets you are investing in, as what you are choosing to invest in should depend on your personal situation. Edit: I am assuming you want to be a long-term investor and owner, making money by owning a portion of companies' profits, and not by trading stocks and/or speculation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9195bb2a2faa4f1aa9f86cdf0eb07809", "text": "If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%: A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns. This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations: Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator: This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae55bf06b5b29598b4932492d995608", "text": "\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b055a1f6b7c4f775ae775a320a646787", "text": "Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16", "text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6f4f331cde178e6cbfb007797db5f9", "text": "The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite", "title": "" }, { "docid": "510468495d918fb3030d90686438efaf", "text": "\"Which is one reason why I don't sell stock until I need to. A couple months ago, my largest index fund investment dropped pretty hard, and I just said \"\"well, I'll just wait for it to come up again.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a774da74939733ad15950b5a2e02f62", "text": "you can start by realizing you usally don't lose permenantly investing, the stock may go down temporarily, but unless the stock is absolute shit it will be worth A LOT more 5 years from now, and will bounce back pretty soon, you only lose if you buy high and then SELL low", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4af7c5b84f8a8e9b587e166afcedb5c", "text": "If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3654d20ab2b1704565386801ebed97b", "text": "\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883", "text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd8d9668f1528cb0c422ceaf8b49f866", "text": "I've read a nice rule of thumb somewhere that you should consider: You should invest (100-YOURAGE)% of your money in stock The rest should be something less volatile and more liquid, so you have some money when the stock market goes down and you need some money nevertheless. So you would start with buying about 75% stock and balance your stock percentage over time by buing more secure assets to keep the stock percentage at the desired level. At some time you might need to sell stock to rebalance and invest in more secure assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699832481c80f6dc6233b81f7b71ad2f", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638320cdc9164f1f10fc3d266a808369", "text": "\"Nobody has a \"\"crash proof\"\" portfolio -- you can make it \"\"crash resistant\"\". You protect against a crash by diversifying and not reacting out of fear when the markets are down. Be careful about focusing on the worst possible scenario (US default) vs. the more likely scenarios. Right now, many people think that inflation and interest rates are heading up -- so you should be making sure that your bond portfolio is mostly in short-duration bonds that are less sensitive to rate risk. Another risk is opportunity cost. Many people sold all of their equities in 2008/2009, and are sitting on lots of money in cash accounts. That money is \"\"safe\"\", but those investors lost the opportunity to recoup investments or grow -- to the tune of 25-40%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4215d59595db6fef019e68352fc63517", "text": "\"This is a really bad idea. You are asking to be forced to pay for something at a time when you most likely NOT want to buy it. Why? There is no stability (much less any degree of predictability) to give up the right to control when and for how much you would be willing to own the S&P500. Just don't do it.....\"\"generate stable income\"\" and \"\"selling puts\"\" is an oxymoron. ===retired investment advisor\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
85270b061d0244c5871ef7aa18632f0f	Is there extra risk in owning an ADR vs. the underlying stock?	[ { "docid": "02ecc79bbe98859380636df1e95a5c82", "text": "Yes, the ADR will trade on a separate exchange from the underlying one, and can (and does) see fluctuations in price that do not match the (exchange corrected) fluctuations that occur in the original market. You are probably exposing yourself to additional risk that is related to:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "20f01969fc7c5ecc435420d3f8a15930", "text": "This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46", "text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a6619ef11534ca2524d1abac32a4a5c", "text": "The economic effect of a CFD from your point of view is very close to the effect of owning the stock. If the stock goes up, you make money. If it goes down you lose money. If it pays a dividend, you get that dividend. You'll typically pay commission for buying and selling the CFDs in a similar way to the commission on stock purchases, though one of the advertised advantages of CFDs is that the commission will be lower. They also often have tax advantages, for example in the UK you don't have to pay stamp duty on CFDs. In theory you are exposed to credit risk on the CFD issuer, which you aren't with the real stocks: if the issuer goes bankrupt, you may lose any money you have invested regardless of how well the stock has performed. It's certainly similar to a bet, but not much more so than investing directly in the stock. In practice the issuer of the CFDs is likely to hedge its own exposure by actually buying the underlying stocks directly, but they can aggregate across lots of contracts and they would tolerate some unhedged exposure to the stock, so they can cut down on the transaction fees. You also won't get the same voting rights as the underlying stock would grant you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82447682208250a97c1c73442c5808ee", "text": "\"There are some useful answers here, but I don't think any of them are quite sufficient. Yes, there are some risks involved in CFD trading, but I will try and give you information so you can make your own decision. Firstly, Cyprus is part of the EU, which gives it a level of credibility. I'm not saying it's the safest or most well regulated market in the world, but that in itself would not particularly scare me away. The far more important issue here is the risk of using CFDs and of eToro themselves. A Contract for Difference is really just a specialization of an Equity Swap. It is in no way like owning a real stock. When you purchase shares of a company you own a real Asset and are usually entitled to dividends and voting rights. With a CFD, what you own is one side of a Swap contract. You have a legal agreement between yourself and eToro to \"\"swap\"\" the return earned on the underlying stock for whatever fees eToro decide to charge. As already mentioned, CFDs are not available to US citizens. Equity swaps have many benefits in financial markets. They can allow access to restricted markets by entering into swaps with banks that have the necessary licenses to trade in places like China. Many \"\"synthetic\"\" ETFs use them in Europe as a way to minimize tracking error as the return is guaranteed by the swap counterparty (for a charge). They also come with one signficant risk: counterparty credit risk. When trading with eToro, for as long as your position is open, you are at risk of eToro going bankrupt. If eToro failed, you do not actually own any stocks, you only own swap contracts which are going to be worthless if eToro ceased to exist. CFDs also have an ongoing cost to maintain the open position. This makes them less suitable for buy and hold strategies as those ongoing costs will eat into your returns. It's also not clear whether you would receive any dividends paid by the stock, which make up a significant proportion of returns for buy and hold investors. eToro's website is fairly non-committal: eToro intends to offer a financial compensation representing the dividends which will be allocated on stocks, to the extent such dividends shall be available to eToro. All of these points expose what CFDs are really for - speculating on the stock market, or as I like to call it: gambling. If you want to invest in stocks for the long term, CFDs are a bad idea - they have high ongoing costs and the counterparty risk becomes significant. Wait until you have enough money and then buy the real thing. Alternatively, consider mutual funds which will allow you to purchase partial shares and will ensure your investment is better diversified across a large number of stocks. If however, you want to gamble and only keep your position open for a short time, these issues may not be of concern to you. There's nothing wrong with gambling, it can be fun, many people gamble in casinos or on football matches - but bear in mind that's what CFDs are for. CFDs were in fact originally created for the UK market as a way to avoid paying capital gains tax when making short term speculative trades. However, if you are going to gamble, make sure you're not putting any more than 1% of your net worth at risk (0.1% may be a better target). There are a few other ways to take a position on stocks using less money than the share price: Fortunately, eToro do not allow leveraged purchase of stocks so you're reasonably safe on this point. They claim this is because of their 'responsible trading policy', although I find that somewhat questionable coming from a broker that offers 400:1 leverage on FX pairs. One final word on eToro's \"\"social trading\"\" feature. A few years ago I was in a casino playing Blackjack. I know nothing about Blackjack, but through sheer luck of the draw I managed to treble my money in a very small amount of time. Seeing this, a person behind me started \"\"following\"\" me by putting his chips down on my seat. Needless to say, I lost everything, but amazingly the person behind me got quite annoyed and started criticizing my strategy. The idea of following other people's trades just because they've been lucky in the past sounds entirely foolish to me. Remember the warning on every mutual fund: Past performance does not guarantee future returns\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871c0b42163b3996693d7c52f41c92e8", "text": "You own the stock at $29.42 At $40, the stocks is called at $26. You can't add the call premium, as it's already accounted for. The trade is biased towards being bearish on the stock. (I edited and added the graph the evening I answered) Not the pretiest graph, but you get the idea. With that $29.42 cost, you are in the money till about $30, then go negative until the most you lose is $3.42.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5af9d614536688e05b29550da45aeb55", "text": "Yes, that's the risk. If the stock is bouncing around a lot your options could get assigned. If it heads south you now are the proud owner of more of a falling stock. It's good that you're looking to understand the risks of an investment method. That's important no matter what the method is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71d4eaabfa6cca5b056b6598546fa4da", "text": ">If we are looking to offset risk in location A where we are not able to buy forward with location W, and they are the same commodity is this even a common practice in risk management? Let me prephase this by saying I don't do work directly in this area, but sometimes I analyze what's happening in less liquid markets compared to more liquid markets in various commodities to get a better sense of the supply and demand dynamics of the market. It's normal - but just looking at the ratios - it looks like the spread is quite volatile - it looks like the price at location W went from trading at 130% of location A to 170% of the price at location A. (I also don't use R so I don't know which time period was the start and which was the end) What moved in one direction can definitely reverse. If you don't know what is driving this movement in the spread then adding the hedge could be riskier than not having any hedge on. And there are scenarios where the price of the commodity you want to buy at location A is going to rise towards the price at liquid location W and if you are unable to buy it and store it then there isn't much you can do to hedge your company's exposure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe", "text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e3377e90870b6ca11d03652a76dc116", "text": "Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend. However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df0a1f4b9861df3f5e5942a2b3e3c49", "text": "\"Risk is the capital you have staked in pursuit of profit. The danger is that you lose what you have risked. For some bets (risks), you can get insurance to cover for losses. Now the \"\"game\"\" of Landlord and Tenant requires you to play fully by the rules set forth by your legislators. In your case, that is the legislators of the State of Texas. Without knowing those rules, you could be liable (open to civil prosecution) for violating those rules. Tenants could be savvy to those rules or savvy enough to hire someone, a lawyer, who knows those rules. As well, in the game of Landlord and Tenant, you must ascertain the creditworthiness of your would-be tenant. If the tenant fails to pay rent, that tenant can detain the residence. You will incur additional outlays to gain possession of your property (ownership in your rental). Now the game of Landlord vs Landlord is different. You can't pick up houses easily enough and even if you could, likely the expense of doing so could wipe out any would profits from having the house as a rental. So, in Landlord vs Landlord, you get constrained by where your rental sits. Thus you must forecast what will the neighborhood look like in five, ten, fifteen years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71ec30d3609296f94f979a175af9cd19", "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:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812", "text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0687250a0ce30595886888539984c142", "text": "Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c61dc248ffe41b7e0a00c09876f29653", "text": "Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "415fd28ed28d8a9133db8d9f3e29968c", "text": "Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4f87db639547c10767bbe09f5f044ce8	Why should the P/E ratio of a growth stock match its percentage earnings growth rate?	[ { "docid": "76c6225dc5f0d9e48a5430310a5a8e41", "text": "This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bc624692d06ad64e7f32232c19638f6", "text": "Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d863578d26125199b3f9ac63a5bf4a", "text": "\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "babde865bb9d96b55faa268417c37cb3", "text": "It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7af4f32798568d7e60f0dbc247e02a37", "text": "The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dc5ad53dbebd7ef9cc8e2a028298b67", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4edced1ac9a8249708dd0ee8f3852303", "text": "While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d2d90e1bda83babf879836b40840068", "text": "\"If you look at the biotech breakdown, you'll find a lot of NAs when it comes to P/E since there are many young biotech companies that have yet to make a profit. Thus, there may be something to be said for how is the entire industry stat computed. Biotechnology can include pharmaceutical companies that can have big profits due to patents on drugs. As an example, look at Shire PLC which has a P/E of 1243 which is pretty high with a Market Capitalization of over a billion dollars, so this isn't a small company. I wonder what dot-com companies would have looked like in 1998/1999 that could well be similar as some industries will have bubbles you do realize, right? The reason for pointing out the Market Capitalization is that this a way to measure the size of a company, as this is merely the sum of all the stock of the company. There could be small companies that have low market capitalizations that could have high P/Es as they are relatively young and could be believed to have enough hype that there is a great deal of confidence in the stock. For example, Amazon.com was public for years before turning a profit. In being without profits, there is no P/E and thus it is worth understanding the limitations of a P/E as the computation just takes the previous year's earnings for a company divided by the current stock price. If the expected growth rate is high enough this can be a way to justify a high P/E for a stock. The question you asked about an industry having this is the derivation from a set of stocks. If most of the stocks are high enough, then whatever mean or median one wants to use as the \"\"industry average\"\" will come from that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0b832c419be0fca81b784603de9143", "text": "Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73d3680c61fcca147e344498ea80ad56", "text": "generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5405a84907defa303d3d8cc9bc1fcff5", "text": "\"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \"\"stuff\"\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d04f9874a062efbbe276fb82e73c715", "text": "The price to earnings ratio is a measure of the company's current share price compared to the annual net earnings per share. The other way to think about this is the number of years a company would take to pay back the share price if the earnings stay constant. This ignores factors like inflation and can be used as an indicator of risk. During the internet bubble many companies had P/E above 24 and no possible means of earning back the share prices that were inflated largely due to speculation. Most tools like Google Finance will list the P/E for a particular quote.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348d8bc951c93bbaffbbbcd54436669a", "text": "GDP = total economic output (i.e. revenue), not income. But for investments, income is what matters. Add in productivity gains of around 2-3%/year due to technology and basic free market dynamics, and you will get closer to that 6% growth. Some mention mergers and acquisitions, but really that's just another form of productivity gains by gaining economy of scale and synergies. Now add in modest selective picking within the S&P index towards those companies which are doing the most in our current economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e4edcdd33450877c1a6c31eab9d4fc", "text": "It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3", "text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb8297b5ca140c0fb70085814539e5a3", "text": "The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know. Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains. Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation. If anything they move in opposite directions. Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
df86361e8402502ae5efcaeb501632f3	Can a company block a specific person from buying its stock?	[ { "docid": "8b1beda0b15210605f037b2adfa37803", "text": "I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32e7c75ea6d1c30311f21aa66cebbe43", "text": "\"A more serious problem: how do you know who's really buying your stock? \"\"Shell companies\"\" are an increasingly obvious problem in corporate and tax accountability. There are jurisdictions where companies can be created with secret lists of directors and shareholders. If stock is bought by one of these companies, it is very hard to trace it to a particular individual.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eed570a057e44ec471e8eb2cbce506bf", "text": "In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company. A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b602e7e96c16ecee3022d616ff5d878", "text": "The company could use registered shares with restricted transferability, i.e. shares that require the consent of the issuing company for a change of ownership.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7170d25866988932336536d81dd0c86", "text": "The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a790ea76bfb4f97a68f559ad99aca210", "text": "\"With the second example, if you continue to read on you will see that although directors must try and maximise shareholders wealth. That precedence doesn't change however the interpretation of the actions and whether they maximise shareholders wealth does. For example giving money to charity with regards to the Doge v. Ford case would probably have been blocked on the grounds that it decreases shareholder wealth, but later cases such as A. P. Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow say that donations can increase shareholders wealth in the long run. So it gives a broader coverage of the actions deemed to increase shareholder wealth. The second is related to short term vs long term wealth but part of the reason for it was due to the inability of Paramount to prove that the value increase for shareholders in the long run from selling to Viacom rather than QVC would be larger than the difference between the two offers, which was 1.3 billion. Then there is also the issue of shareholders rights and the companys ability to block shareholders from selling to whomever they want. So as I said it's related, but the issue isn't solely and simply about short term vs long term wealth. Both examples are kind of weak as in the first, well the issue doesn't really exist in the present day as previous case law has broadened the definition of actions which increase shareholder wealth, and in the second, short term vs long term value is related, but mostly tagging along with a larger issue. Your original statement was \"\"in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.)\"\" Are there any examples where shareholders have sued simply because they wanted better short term performance over long term performance?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e8790f3d77d44502c61766e237945b", "text": "(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading. I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol). I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that). I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a449ebd5cbf311c0f30e78020ee78c18", "text": "Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c", "text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d6e3a31ea771b143e0a02ff3d3e019", "text": "They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise. It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1368ff9eae4bc580a900ba04e19cb65", "text": "This all happens at once and quickly. Not in order. So the HFT floods the exchange with orders. This is independent of anything. They would be doing this no matter what. Simply in anticipation of finding someone who will want what they're trying to buy. They then notice someone wants what they have a buy order for. They, at the same time, cancel all orders that don't fit this criteria. At the same time, they're testing this guy to see what his price is. So while they're testing this guy they're cancelling all orders that are above his strike price for that stock. They let the right order go through, for a lower price. If they can't get a lower price, they just forget it. However, they probably can because they were in line first. They're buying before this guy and AFTER they know what he wants to pay. Then, they sell it to him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a1988af40ba10e274e242856102d2cb", "text": "\"So item 1 The two investors leading the suit say \"\"it's because we want lots of control\"\" and sue founder. The standard share holders want equal voting - as would I. Founder appoints two new board members to ensure this happens. Item 2 the suit: The suit is to remove the ability to appoint new board members from the founder correct? After he has appointed two new ones to implement the changes the other shareholders want correct? But somehow the suit is \"\"on behalf\"\" of the other share holders? Do I have you explanation right?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8203d1d7cb6f6118bc9baba46f41a879", "text": "That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for *at least* 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408", "text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c11fe5f13315fd4fb806ae0e7b291386", "text": "\"As far as I know, the answer to this is generally \"\"no.\"\" The closest thing would be to identify the stock transfer company representing the company that you want to hold and buy through them. (I have held this way, but I don't know if it's available on all stocks.) This eliminates the broker, but there's still a \"\"middle man\"\" in the transfer company. Note this section from the Stock transfer agent Wikipedia article: A public company usually only designates one company to transfer its stock. Stock transfer agents also run annual meetings as inspector of elections, proxy voting, and special meetings of shareholders. They are considered the official keeper of the corporate shareholder records. The decision to have a single transfer company is a practical one, ensuring that there is one entity responsible for recording this data - Hence even if you could buy stock \"\"directly\"\" from the company that you want to own, it would likely still get routed through the transfer company for recording.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4046514c9c1f46c97d5cbb109400ba6e", "text": "It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3098a35499b252d57dc59783b87d239", "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 cannot block the sale because they have insufficient voting rights. What usually happens then is that they either settle the lawsuit out of court by paying a little more to the holdouts or the lawsuit is thrown out and they take the original offer from the buyer. Rarely does a lawsuit from a buyout go to trial.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db8b80376aa1a0856d0afdb3805af0dc", "text": "Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates. In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice. [Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3958b9cb8e53f34f5db3249b09a9fa1e", "text": "No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cef52d80b8cd4414af5e90ebb4ec7768	How should I decide whether to buy more shares of a stock when its price drops?	[ { "docid": "e777dfc794cdba76f71224179043151b", "text": "\"A key principle of economics is: Sunk costs are irrelevant. You bought the stock at 147 and it has now fallen to 144. That's too bad. This has nothing to do with whether it is wise or foolish to buy shares at 144. The only relevant thing to consider is: Do I expect the stock to go up or down from 144? You have lost $3 per share on the original buy. Buying more shares will not \"\"reduce your loss\"\" in any way. Suppose you bought 100 shares at 147. The price then drops to 144. You have lost $3 per share, or $300 total. You buy another 50 more shares at 144. The price stays at 144. So your average purchase price is now (147 x 100 + 144 x 50) / 150 = 146. So I guess you could say that your \"\"average loss per share\"\" is now only $2. But it's $2 x 150 shares instead of $3 x 100 shares. You still lost $300. You didn't reduce your loss by a penny. Maybe it made you feel better that you reduced your average loss per share, but this is just an arithmetic game. If you believe that the stock will continue to drop, than buying more shares just means you will lose even more money. Your average loss per share may go down, but you're just multiplying that average by more and more shares. Of course if you believe that the stock is now at an unjustifiably low price and it will likely go back up, then sure, buy. If you buy at 144 and it goes back up to 147, then you'll be making $3 per share on the new shares you purchased. But I repeat, whether or not you buy more shares should have nothing to do with your previous buy. Buy more shares if you think the price will go up from the present price; don't buy more shares if you don't think it will go up. The decision should be exactly the same as if you had never previously bought shares. (I'm assuming here that you are a typical small investor, that you not buying enough shares to have any significant effect on the market, nor that you are in a position to buy enough shares to take control of the company.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f617125f90004d1be781ecd016139541", "text": "There is no way to find out what future will be if you have only quote from past. In other words, nobody is able to trade history successfully and nobody will be able, ever. Quote's movement is not random. Quote is not price. Because brokerage account is not actual money. Any results in past do not guarantee you anything. Brokerage accounts should only have portions of money which you are ready to loose completely. Example: Investment firms recommended buying falling Enron stocks, even when it collapsed 3 times, then - bankrupt, suddenly. What a surprise!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3f5da25c83626a5a159a078dfdc8dd25", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16", "text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d842df2edcb6060ea67ec2da23855a0c", "text": "The best thing to do is not worry about what time is best to buy but put in a conditional order before the market opens. If your conditions are met during the trading day your order will go through and you will buy the shares. This keeps your emotions out of your trading and will stop you from either chasing the market or buying when you consider the wrong time. As you have already done your analysis and made your decision before market open, thus you should place your conditional orders and stop losses before market opens as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "798f80156a8c795c90d4ca2e79efc918", "text": "Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc5eee7dc69b5b6abe644a127fc97e84", "text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de5fc302d9cddc53c62efcfcfa276d1b", "text": "There are a couple of things you could do, but it may depend partly on the type of orders your broker has available to you. Firstly, if you are putting your limit order the night before after close of market at the top of the bids, you may be risking missing out if bid & offer prices increase by the time the market opens the next day. On the other hand, if bid & offer prices fall at the open of the next day you should get your order filled at or below your limit price. Secondly, you could be available at the market open to see if prices are going up or down and then work out the price you want to buy at then and work out the quantity you can buy at that price. I personally don't like this method because you usually get too emotional, start chasing the market if prices start rising, or start regretting buying at a price and prices fall straight afterwards. My preferred method is this third option. If your broker provides stop orders you can use these to both get into and out of the market. How they work when trying to get into the market is that once you have done your analysis and picked a price that you would want to purchase at, you put a stop buy order in. For example, the price closed at $9.90 the previous day and there has been resistance at $10.00, so you would put a stop buy trigger if the price goes over $10, say $10.01. If your stop buy order gets triggered you can have either a buy market order or a limit order above $10.01 (say $10.02). The market order would go through immediately whilst the limit order would only go through if the price continues going to $10.02 or above. The advantage of this is that you don't get emotional trying to buy your securities whilst sitting in front of the screen, you do your analysis and set your prices whilst the market is closed, you only buy when the security is rising (not falling). As your aim is to be in long term you shouldn't be concerned about buying a little bit higher than the previous days close. On the other hand if you try and buy when the price is falling you don't know when it will stop falling. It is better to buy when the price shows signs of rising rather than falling (always follow the trend).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "403db5f996825fefabaa13f1a2c15f27", "text": "It might go down a bit, or it might not. That is nearly impossible to predict, as the relative volumes are unknown, and the exact procedure is also unknown (they might do the selling over a longer period, or as a buy back, or immediately, or...) However, why would you want to wait at all? It is generally not a great idea to put your savings into the company you work for ('all eggs in one basket' - when it goes down, you lose your job and your savings), so the best approach is to pick a good day in the next weeks and sell the stock and invest into something more neutral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9adaed15da977c52bf809649a2538234", "text": "One of things I've learned about trading on the stock market is not to let your emotions get to you. Greed and fear are among them. You may be overthinking. Why not keep it simple, if you think it can go up to $300 a share, put in a stop loss at $X amount where you would secure your invested money along with some gains. If it goes up, let it go up, if it doesn't well you got an exit. Then if it goes up change your stop loss amount higher if you are feeling more optimistic about the stock. And by the way, a disciplined investor would stick to their strategy but also have the smarts to rethink it on the fly such as in a situation like you are in. Just in my opinion anyway, but congrats on the gain! Some gains are better than none.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a50d2cf6d90725d5e1782f47f5c09b5", "text": "\"You probably bought the stock near the peak because \"\"it's been up a lot lately.\"\" That's the easiest way to lose money. You need to go back and do some basic research. The stock appears to have been expensive around 75. Why is that? The stock seems to be in a \"\"comfortable\"\" level around 45. Why is THAT? Maybe it's too expensive around 45 (based on the P/E ratio, or other measures); maybe you should buy more at 45, where it is cheap, even though 75 is too expensive. The key is to study the stock where it is today (45-47). Ask yourself what you would do at TODAY's price, and today's \"\"fundamentals.\"\" That will also save you from paying 75 for a stock worth 45, and should save you from paying 45 for a stock if it is only worth 35.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c58152bac258d3fb5d4ebce4dc2aaf2d", "text": "Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4a07897823bdd213012a5c4d7dcf56d", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634bdaeebed3f415b4930b0e86a0187e", "text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7", "text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d047ac83b71de6c15d0775b52584d54b	Can compensation income from an employee stock purchase plan be negative?	[ { "docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e", "text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0fe37bd3e480b3c4d7d039cdfb26aa2a", "text": "\"IANAL, but no, this is not sound legal advice. There are a few things that stick out to me as fishy. First off: you are calculating the 3% safe-harbor on the 2017 compensation limit of $270k, but limiting yourself to $53k in total contributions which is the 2016 limit. It's hard to tell what tax year you're working in here. If you're planning for 2017, fine, but if you're wrapping up 2016 then you need to use 2016 limits. Secondly (and this is something I think your counsel should know already): you don't take Employer contributions out of gross wages (box 1) on the W-2. They aren't even reported there in the first place! With your base scenario the 2 employees' W-2s would look like this: Employee A's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 14,966.67 = 265,033.33 Employee B's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 0 = 280,000 Elective deferrals are the only thing that should come out of wages. Not the SH 3% or Match. Thirdly: Retirement Plan expenses really aren't an \"\"above the line\"\" expense. They are not included in cost of goods sold. Even if you establish a \"\"pool\"\" for that expense, it's still not a direct cost attributable to the production of whatever your company sells. Also: Employee B should not have to contribute to the retirement account of Employee A! The only situation I can see where Employee A and B would be required to fund the match equally, were if Employee A & B are both 50% owners and the company has no funds of its own with which to fund the match. The company has obligated itself to fund the match, and if the company doesn't have any money then the money still has to come from somewhere (ie. the owners pony up more funds for the match they promised their employees, it just happens that the employees are also the owners). Even in this situation though, I still stand behind my first 3 points.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01a8d67d87bc2e887865b146dfa421d3", "text": "There are some nuances with HCE definition. To answer your questions. It's compensation as defined by the plan. Usually it's gross comp, but it can exclude things like fringe benefits, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, etc. The compensation test is also a look-back test, meaning that an EE is determined to be an HCE in the current year if their compensation in the previous year was over the limit. I'm not sure how stock options affect this, but I expect they would be counted. Probably have an ESOP plan at that point too which is a whole other can-o-woms. The 5% owner test applies to the current year and also has a one-year look-back period. If at ANY point, even for a day, an employee was more than 5% owner, they are HCE for that year and next. Yes there is a limit. A company may limit the amount of HCE's to the top 20% of employees by pay like Aganju said. They can also disregard employees that may otherwise have been excluded under the plan using statutory exclusions. Example, they can disregard employees under 21 years and with less than 1 year of service. Hahaha, the IRS does not like to concisely define things. You can look here, that's probably as concise as you'll get. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cdaa61a2421adce6c2d2297ddbb8541", "text": "\"I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups. One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway. There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company. Any agreement needs be in writing. In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed. Translation: \"\"It will never happen.\"\" It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen. What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing? What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something? What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled? Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen. Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options. You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae6624165f7fd30a880665a79b3ea4e5", "text": "I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f996e860226e80e6a3f145fbba2be0f", "text": "The net gain isn't $0. An employer prefers candidate A over candidate B because he thinks A is worth more. To give the employer adequate incentive to go with B over A, the incentive would have to be worth about as much as A's margin over the expected duration of A's employment. That's probably not just like $5k.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec21364d60e47dc92323262e60451433", "text": "It's legal. In fact, they are required to do this, assuming you are in fact a HCE (highly compensated employee) to avoid getting in trouble with the IRS. I'm guessing they don't provide documentation for the same reason they don't explain to you explicitly what the income thresholds are for social security taxes, etc - that's a job for your personal accountant. Here's the definition of a HCE: An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015, 2016 or 2017), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. There are rules the restrict distributions from plans like 401ks. For example, treasury reg 1.401a(4)-5(b)(3) says that a plan cannot make a distribution to a HCE if that payment reduces the asset value of the plan to below 110% of the value of the plan's current liabilities. So, after taking account all distributions to be made to HCEs and the asset value of the plan, everyone likely gets proportionally reduced so that they don't run afoul of this rule. There are workarounds for this. But, these are options that the plan administrators may take, not you. I suppose if you were still employed there and at a high enough level, a company accountant would have discussed these options with you. Note, there's a chance there's some other limitation on HCEs that I'm missing which applies to your specific situation. Your best bet, to understand, is simply ask. Your money is still there, you just can't get it all this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee5096736d26eb3fcfc4da132c1ec5ef", "text": "I just had a reverse split done 1 to 35. I went from 110,000 shares and a negative 13k to 3172 shares, and I still had a negative 13k. If your company does a reverse split take the lost and get out, it's bad news all the way around.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b29640c8014917d91e8d24c91f1d8522", "text": "You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69a4efad355a9b1337be7e402623dcba", "text": "As I recall, the gain for ISOs is considered ordinary income, and capital losses can only negate up to $3000 of this each year. If you exercised and held the stock, you have ordinary income to the exercise price, and cap gain above that, if you hold the stock for two years. EDIT - as noted below, this answer works for USians who found this question, but not for the OP who is Canadian, or at least asked a question at it relates to Canada's tax code.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f46e0a3669d0732b765f5b13b110c0a3", "text": "Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f01969fc7c5ecc435420d3f8a15930", "text": "This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "364522c1c91bc24141f5ae554ae35516", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7e127b0fa41389b4f06b9f16c85775", "text": "It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns. If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash. If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money. If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners. Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a5ee4a4e9b317c00c127ed24f0fa870", "text": "It's not a 60% raise. He made 60% more than the previous year. There's lots of things that could account for that. One of them is an annual bonus that was larger than his previous annual bonus - the calculation of that bonus was likely negotiated as part of his contract. A large chunk of the gains seems to be between that and stock/option awards. Often stock/option vest differently in the first year than remaining years, and the value changes over time as the stock market moves. If you have options granted with a strike price set based on the closing price of stock the day you start, and you cash them out as you get them, after a year if it's gone up 5% you make a bit. After the second year if it's gone up 10%, you doubled your income from that source even though you didn't receive any more options that year. His salary raise doesn't seem out of line. I've gotten larger raises in my career. Now... suppose all of his compensation was spread out evenly across all of the employees. CAT has a bit over 100K employees. His total compensation was $16M 16M / 100K = $160. You could give every employee $160/yr more for the cost of the CEO's entire compensation package. That comes out at 7-8 cents/hour. If you only do it with his raise and not the one time bonuses and returns from stock/option grants well... $3/employee/yr. The best way to invest in people is to offer training to help them move to higher value jobs. Things like tuition reimbursement programs based on maintaining good performance in classes are solid benefits to offer. Or even job training to those who show aptitude for different classes of work. Maybe some merit based bonus structure - people who come up with good ideas for cutting costs, improving efficiency, etc and work to see them implemented qualify for some sort of bonus based on a percentage of the value of that change. The bigger problem with those types of programs is that collective bargaining agreements tend to forbid any sort of merit based pay. They also make jumping line in seniority impossible - i.e. the union agreement would say that the person most qualified for the extra training is the one who's been in the job the longest. Some of these rules make sense if your goal is that everybody is equal and your idea of fairness is based on avoiding inequality. To justify it, they'll throw up things like the boss's cousin's brother-in-law's ex-wife's son could get preferential treatment if the contract doesn't prevent it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d566ddfa53fc8dedee7b7add94e91ae5", "text": "I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
78d2b06a13c79af174cc0ce21423007f	Gauge the strength of the resistance level of a stock just using EMA	[ { "docid": "139927bd506ce02da1bb07d0ccbe32a2", "text": "Firstly, you mean resistance not support, as a support is below the current price and resistance is above the price. Secondly using a MA as support or resistance would mean that that support or resistance level would move up or down as the price moved up or down and would not be static at $25. Generally stocks will range trade more often than they will be trending (either up or down), so a stock can be range trading between a support and resistance levels for months and even years, and usually the longer it range trades for, the bigger the outbreak (either up or down) will be when it does happen. Using a MA (especially shorter dated ones) as support or resistance (or as a up or down trend line) works better when a stock is already trending up or down. When a stock is moving sideways it will tend to keep crossing above and below the MA, and you will be whipsawed if you try to use them as your trigger for entry in these situations. Compare the two charts below: In the first chart the stock is up-trending for over 6 months and the 50d EMA is being used as a support or up-trending line. As long as the price does not break through and close under the 50d EMA then the uptrend continues. You could use this EMA line as a means of entering the stock when prices move towards the EMA and bounce off it back up again. Or you could use it as your stop loss level, so if price closes below the EMA line you would sell your position. In the second chart, the stock has been range trading between the support line at about $21.80 and the resistance line at about $25.50 for 10 months. In this case the price has been moving above and below the 50d EMA during these 10 months and you may have been whipsawed many times if you were trading each break above or below the 50d EMA. A better strategy here would be to buy the stock as it approached the support line and bounces up off it and then close and reverse your position (go short) when the price approached the resistance line and bounces down off it. Edit: When range trading you would have your stops just below the support line when going long and just above the resistance line when going short, that way if it does break through support or resistance and starts trending you will be covered. So this shows that different strategies should be used when a stock is trending to when it is range trading. MAs are better used as entry signal during an established uptrend or downtrend than when a stock is range trading.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "67fe7636e0ee67c732c363fae29c6bef", "text": "That is true. You will not be able to reconstruct the value of the index from the data returned with this script. I initially wrote this script because I wanted data for a lot of stocks and I wanted to perform PCA on the stocks currently included in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9f422439201bab41100af72d64060f8", "text": "I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own. I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak. That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading. A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac15cc8a6504ce9b1e133cab143aff97", "text": "\"I would have to disagree with the other responders. In technical analysis of stock charts, various short and long term moving averages are used to give an indication of the trend of the stock in the short and long term, as compared to the current price. I would prefer to use the term moving average (MA) rather than average as the MA is recalculated every day (or at appropriate frequencies for your data) on the period you are using. I would also expand on the term \"\"moving average\"\". There are two that are commonly used Going back to the question, of the value of this number, For example if the current price is above the 200 day EWMA and also above the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending upwards. Conversely if current price is below the 200 day EWMA and also below the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending downwards. These numbers are chosen on the basis of the market you are trading in, the volatility and other factors. For another example of how a number of moving averages are used together, please have a read of Daryl Guppy's Multiple Moving Average, though this does not use moving averages as large as 200 days.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a553405f8eccfb06d6fae1018d4ab54a", "text": "\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \"\"Beta\"\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce676212f9a76f4a1caaaed0e929408", "text": "\"ycharts.com has \"\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\"\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f241d0bb322fd98b425318cd14c2628", "text": "Okay, how good is my programmed test going to be if I'm new to trading? I thought the biggest flaw to algorithm trading is the people that write the code? I am still trying to develop my own sense of swing reading with significant structure, price action, and other technicals. I was going to use the click-by-click, ninjatrader method to see what works best. So, between your answer and my question. If I was going to buy data, from what stocks would be the best data to mine. L?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a5c567e26572b4f9a25fd45360f58ab", "text": "The values of 12, 26 and 9 are the typical industry standard setting used with the MACD, however other values can be substituted depending on your trading style and goals. The 26d EMA is considered the long moving average when in this case it is compared to the shorter 12d EMA. If you used a 5d EMA and a 10d EMA then the 10d EMA would be considered the long MA. It is based on what you are comparing it with. Apart from providing signals for a reversal in trend, MACD can also be used as an early indication to a possible end to a trend. What you look out for is divergence between the price and the MACD. See chart below of an example: Here I have used 10d & 3d EMAs and 1 for the signal (as I did not want the signal to show up). I am simply using the MACD as a momentum indicator - which work by providing higher highs in the MACD with higher highs in price. This shows that the momentum in the trend is good so the trend should continue. However the last high in price is not met with a higher high in the MACD. The green lines demonstrate bearish divergence between price and the MACD, which is an indication that the momentum of the trend is slowing down. This could provide forewarning that the trend may be about to end and to take caution - i.e. not a good time to be buying this stock or if you already own it you may want to tighten up your stop loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99e624fff0e94350a2a86d1a88cc5782", "text": "\"Support and resistance points indicate price levels where there have been a large amount of trading activity, usually from institutions, that tend to stabilize the price of a stock. Support is a temporary FLOOR, where people have been buying in large quantities. That means there's a good chance that the stock won't go below this level in the near term. (But if it does, watch out.) Resistance is a temporary CEILING where people have been selling. When the stock price hits this level, people tend to sell, and push it back down. Until there are \"\"no more\"\" sellers at this level. Then the price could skyrocket if there is enough buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12226cbcd9d23ce4d27dc0efef65eece", "text": "Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a17cd4afbb0b960169fbf1545bf16d0", "text": "One of the most obvious uses of SMAs is the detection of a trend reversal. A trend reversal happens when a short term SMA crosses over a longer term SMA. For example, if a 20 day moving average was, previously, above a 200 day moving average, but has crossed over the 200 day and is currently below the 200 day then the security has performed a 'death cross' and the trend is for lower and lower prices. Stockcharts.com has excellent 'chart school' for the beginning chart user. They also provide excellent charts. Here is a link: http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school I like to use a 20 day SMA, a 200 day SMA, and a 21 day EMA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2027b3ebdcb1a87ae89afa3da0ca9733", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e67feb54e0801a51758bca20bb4bbec4", "text": "I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dffe87ad1873843c0b84899fbc92fcc0", "text": "If you had a trading system, and by trading system I mean the criteria setup that you will take a trade on, then once a setup comes up at what price will you open the trade and at what price you will close the trade. As an example, if you want to buy once price breaks through resistance at $10.00 you might place your buy order at $10.05. So once you have a written trading system you could do backtesting on this system to get a percentage of win trades to loosing trades, your average win size to average lose size, then from this you could work out your expectancy for each trade that you follow your trading system on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb58d86e7f47048800fa325beac73e59", "text": "Relative Strength Indicators are also trailing indicators. They are based on the number of recent upticks or downticks in an investment's price. (The size of a tick is quantized, and related to the investment's price.) By the time enough upticks have accumulated to generate a buy signal, the investment has already increased in price significantly. Similarly, by the time enough downticks have accumulated a to generate a sell signal, the investment has already dropped in price significantly. The theory of Relative Strength Indicators is based on the hope that moves found by these indicators are likely to continue after the signal is generated. But even if this is the case, someone who relies on these indicators will miss out on the first part of the move. Dorsey-Wright offers investment research based on the theory of Relative Strength Indicators. They offer investment vehicles based on this research. They also work with local investment advisors to develop custom back-tested strategies. They have published a white-paper, with references to others' research.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "276a0ba22ec11912d9467d96d8545424", "text": "That's why I said you can do a weighted average and take into account other factors. The initial average calculation is just a simple, high level average to compare betas across different listings. For a more precise calculation you would have to weigh different factors.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b842d3b53a47f3c068c50e9058fdc49e	Can someone explain recent AAMRQ stock price behavior to me?	[ { "docid": "5fa116cdd8353e4c55f4f4fa6ca1daef", "text": "There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "58d12be977589164580793608e7d3fea", "text": "Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0bf0ef396653e4732d06e483c36d84a", "text": "I'm a bit skeptical of some of the views the author states, in particular: > The likelihood of executing a trade at the best price depends on the length of the queue to buy or sell and the incentives to trade. Longer queues lead to longer delays to execute a trade. Delays typically lead to worse outcomes. Quite simply, it makes no sense to wait on a longer line to receive a worse execution. Why would this be the case? If anything, I'd think that forcing through too many orders at once risks price slippage created by excess supply or demand. He argues that waiting in queue may impair price performance, but I'd think that possible favourable or adverse shifts in the price will average to zero over time. If this is the case and they do average to zero, then I think funds are doing the savvy thing by putting relatively small, low-priority trades in to the flow at a rate that saves the most money on average. I can see why day traders may not be too thrilled with this, but that is such a small slice of the mutual fund/brokerage clientele. In the broader picture, funds and brokerages are being squeezed so tightly on expense ratios that I'd think any cost saving/rebates they do get probably filter back to customers in the form of reduced fees. Take Robinhood as an example: they use their trading rebates to provide an extremely low cost trading platform for retail investors. That hardly seems unfair to me. Any traders care to comment? This is all just speculation on my part and I've not looked at any time series data yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ccebb6bcea7089d89b1fd72e66e3b81", "text": "Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bddbceba5540cf233b6ac80b6426420c", "text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d8dba8e9987f3172b1977f28b4635e7", "text": "Its Price/Earnings, or P/E, is at (roughly) 96 That means that for EVERY $1 that Amazon makes in profit, people are willing to pay $96 for it. This also means that for every $1 I invest in Amazon, I'll have to wait 96 years until I've collected on that - and that's assuming that 100% of their profit goes out through dividends, something that Amazon doesn't give out. This is either because the stock price is really high, or because its earnings is LOW. Is this kind of ridiculous P/E common among the US stock (I'm not from the US)? Is there something going on in Amazon? Am I missing something (I'm a little new myself)? I'm looking at [this graph](http://i.imgur.com/4YpDH.png). Return on Equity (aka RoE) has been going down. This is either because it has added more shareholders equity (equity issuance?), OR it's because net income has been falling. When you compare this to the rising P/E this recent year, something tells me that something is screwed up. People have been valuing Amazon more and more, while Amazon has been providing less and less to its shareholders! [Here's more statistics](http://i.imgur.com/kJjPW.png) showing profit margin going down the last year, while the valuation went up (though it has been falling as it maxed at P/E 113). So, either I've missed something (some awesome news or whatever), or I'm uneducated, or this stock has been overvalued. I'm assuming that it probably was a mix of the first and the last, and that this is just a correction. Correct me if I'm wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeebccfd8c6527653932d31d4e087b9a", "text": "Since you asked about Apple, and I happen to have two positions - This is what happened. I was long the $500, short the $600, in effect, betting Apple would recover from its drop from $700 down to $450 or so. Friday, my target was to hope that Apple remain above $600, but not really caring how much it went over. Now, post split, the magic number is $85.71. My account shows the adjusted option pricing, but doesn't yet show AAPL's new price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a217cbaefeb85839cd9f343a46cad2d9", "text": "\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1d17cab7820e2dde13a9add87fa3ebb", "text": "Analysts normally (oxymoron here) gauge their targets on where the stock is currently and more importantly where it has been. Except for in the case of say a Dryships where it was a hundred dollar stock and is now in the single digits, it is safe to assume that Apple for instance was well over $ 700 and is now at $500, and that a price guidance of $ 580 is not that remarkable and a not so difficult level to strike. Kind of like a meteorologist; fifty percent chance of rain. Analysts and weathermen.Hard to lose your job when your never really wrong. Mr Zip, Over and outta here", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b42e15f40f75d337c1a93b03c9c664cb", "text": "\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4a07897823bdd213012a5c4d7dcf56d", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b69d285da0ed0700b3cf059001f2f7e5", "text": "\"There tends to be high volume around big changes in stock price. The volume of a stock does not remain constant and the term \"\"fat fingers\"\" can influence price.--> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/that-japanese-fat-finger-can-absolutely-happen-in-u-s-.html That being said keshlam is 99% right when it comes to a stock moving when their is no news or earnings announcements. Check out these papers. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01285.x/full They do a time series analysis to try and predict future prices off of past demand during news events. They forecast using auto-regressive models. google \"\"forecasting autoregressive model\"\" and the upenn lecture will be helpful. I would post another link but I cannot because I do not have enough rep/ This is more of a quant question. Hope this helps. JL\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cbbb07f0be0ceda1705c96158f0c51d", "text": "The price action is... untradeable. You have money flying in and out of trades without reason. Apple down? Then amzn goes up as tech trader cash tries to find a new trend. But trends are not materializing. There is no consensus between the news, trends the technical indicators, money managers... Just stay clear till the dust settles. Us dollars should be ok. Gold isnt even that reliable as qe3 is not certain. I think everything is heafing down en mass in the market but there is residual lunatic optimisim out there making shorts dangerous. I guess you could sell the highs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613", "text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43531848555bdaee1aff5d1e8f3c3af6", "text": "Yeah, the past 4-5 years have been rough on fundamental guys (not to say companies like AAPL didn't fare well), but EVERYTHING has been macro. When correlations go to 1 across the board and central bank legislation has have a bigger impact on earnings than new products/good mgmt/etc. it's hard to be a fundamentalist. Like your style, this market environment is ripe for HF's though that can use leverage/hedges/and short-term positioning to create alpha while the mutual funds are stuck in long-term structured investment objective ruts and reduced risk. Not to say you can't create alpha through selecting better/undervalued stocks, it's just been damn near impossible the last 5 years to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "912d1ca43a19afff15b211b4e1968178", "text": "Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks. It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity. However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising. It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized). It's worth remembering that it is still stock. If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk). So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average? Yes.. -ish. Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b20d0d8b3b9083c65fcaef24fcad61c2	What do I need to start trading in the NSE (National Stock Exchange)?	[ { "docid": "f8b2de9570f33646c62ec89ff9eaf61f", "text": "To start trading at a minimum you need 3 things; Bank Account: This again is not must, but most preferred to transact. Quite a few broker would insist on this. Demat Account: This is must as all shares on NSE are held electronically. The custodians are CSDL or NSDL both Government entities. These don't offer services directly to customer, but via other financial institutions like Banks and Large Brokers. Broker Account: This is required to buy or sell securities. If you are only buying in IPO, this is not required as one can directly participate in IPO and Broker is not involved. However if you want to buy and sell on NSE you would need a broker account. Quite a few financial institutes offer all 3 services or 2 services [Demat/Broker]. The fee structure and online service etc are differentiators. You can take a look at options and decide the best one to use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fa9f7fba80d6902b2465935b6e95795", "text": "Yes Absolutely! You will need to provide Sharekhan with a cancelled cheque from OBC which has your account number and name on it. They will link that to your DMAT account, and any settlements/dividends paid will directly be deposited into your OBC bank account. Any time you need to deposit money into your DMAT account, you will need to provide Sharekhan with a checque from OBC and they will credit the amount and you can buy anything you like. Cheers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9c507ab40c6f51ff32c9446fe635781", "text": "Yes, you can open a Trading Account at one place and a Demat Account at another place. Therefore you can open Trading Account at Sharekhan and Demat Account at OBC. However, it would be more convenient for you if both the accounts are opened at the same place which would reduce unnecessary work after every transaction.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2e0f31f94cf52b627aa07e0d9adb7d98", "text": "\"Find a stock screener that has data for the BSE and NSE. You may be able to look directly at volatility but a good stock screener will have the technical analysis indicator called \"\"average true range\"\", ATR for short. This will let you see the average range of price moves over several days.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e04d8fce524207578d6965de2095c43", "text": "Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92c9301f6148be2b3f14b088581243d3", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2933c48c4708a2ad6e4a280295b127d2", "text": "Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87620c0886760b6e8eb40fe5c0e8d742", "text": "A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e81f9290b6290222284395e7c06f4e4", "text": "\"Sole Proprietor can be registered under the \"\"Shop & Establishment Act\"\". Find out where one can register it in your city. One needs to fill a simple form. Its a nominal fee of Rs 100/-. If there is a Chamber of Commerce, they generally help in completing the formalities for free. A CA can also help you get this done for a small fee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1399f2e6614b36a0dda352caa0ebf2f2", "text": "I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland. This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcd63746460412b016148057d123dec0", "text": "It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78908b30e22bc43b4c319314b6d16618", "text": "a) Go to Money super market and compare all the share dealing accounts and choose one to your liking. b) That depends on one's own circumstances. Nobody can be give you any specific strategies without knowing your financial situation, goals and risk averseness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a", "text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f41222ce7dc5831f6d274d9d46090a", "text": "I know nice and free stock screener for UK (and 20+ exchanges) - https://unicornbay.com/screener?f=exchange_str\|%3D\|LSE;&s=MarketCapitalization\|desc&p=1\|20 from Unicorn Bay. It supports both fundamental and technical analysis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e926b3fac533119204833cd6bc4f96a", "text": "\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96", "text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebc0219212e0782242fc0ec7d8b75774", "text": "It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0adec367236de98979284b2f06191c3", "text": "I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ce6a2e661334718872395c64edebce96	Is the money you get from shorting a stock free to use for going long on other stocks?	[ { "docid": "53c06e74c1030eaa798f9b359ecfbf4a", "text": "You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac12dd70ea26a0d33a258b442a2d659", "text": "\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cc6373635f3f0a7b32ab64a05ae50d01", "text": "There is no free ride at most brokers. You will likely be charged a margin fee for that trade even though you only held the margin shares for part of one day. The margin fee would be the annual margin interest rate calculated down to a one day holding period,so it would be smaller. Check your broker's policies but most work like this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72", "text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1929f84ebda43eda1fc9728f51932dbf", "text": "\"mhoran_psprep has answered the question well about \"\"shorting\"\" e.g. making a profit if the stock price goes down. However a CEO can take out insurance (called hedging) against the stock price going down in relation to stocks they already own in some cases. But is must be disclosed in public filings etc. This may be done for example if most of the CEO’s money is in the stock of the company and they can’t sell for tax reasons. Normally it would only be done for part of the CEO’s holding.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04e9b65ecb0708ce669b25577b90f895", "text": "Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d75b5516f8f79c5b756a560d56d7a8cf", "text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ad976b1e5d211f36c818bfef24e2a1", "text": "Is there any precedent for companies trading on their own insider information for the benefit of stockholders? Said another way, if a company were to enter a new market where they were very confident of their ability to steamroll a public competitor, could they use a wholly-owned special-purpose investment vehicle to short that competitor in order to juice the benefit of that move?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91c50e774803034969f7d5fb7a32d253", "text": "\"It is true, as farnsy noted, that you generally do not know when stock that you're holding has been loaned by your broker to someone for a short sale, that you generally consent to that when you sign up somewhere in the small print, and that the person who borrows has to make repay and dividends. The broker is on the hook to make sure that your stock is available for you to sell when you want, so there's limited risk there. There are some risks to having your stock loaned though. The main one is that you don't actually get the dividend. Formally, you get a \"\"Substitute Payment in Lieu of Dividends.\"\" The payment in lieu will be taxed differently. Whereas qualified dividends get reported on Form 1099-DIV and get special tax treatment, substitute payments get reported on Form 1099-MISC. (Box 8 is just for this purpose.) Substitute payments get taxed as regular income, not at the preferred rate for dividends. The broker may or may not give you additional money beyond the dividend to compensate you for the extra tax. Whether or not this tax difference matters, depends on how much you're getting in dividends, your tax bracket, and to some extent your general perspective. If you want to vote your shares and exercise your ownership rights, then there are also some risks. The company only issues ballots for the number of shares issued by them. On the broker's books, however, the short sale may result in more long positions than there are total shares of stock. Financially the \"\"extra\"\" longs are offset by shorts, but for voting this does not balance. (I'm unclear how this is resolved - I've read that the the brokers essentially depend on shareholder apathy, but I'd guess there's more to it than that.) If you want to prevent your broker from loaning out your shares, you have some options:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b", "text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dcf7e294498674a4dcbe9ce8598061c", "text": "\"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d2b13e35b38e12d934800189817837", "text": "\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82299a4415bac48fb7fee972fa61914a", "text": "Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de3d48ff93b1a5a9f562486f4699bead", "text": "Yes in order for you to short a stock, some one has to be willing to lend it to you to short, the more people that want to short this stock, the higher the borrowing rate is to short it. in some instances such as groupon so many people are shorting it that there are practically no shares left to short and if you do end up getting some it would be at a very high borrowing cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442e5b2c319cfbe09037056a43b30efb", "text": "I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fec3c96128eb1e2a3bda16a87ccfb2e", "text": "\"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about \"\"cheap\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4230bc9749d09b9fad10599e79b40ef", "text": "\"I don't have anything definitive, but in general positions in a company are not affected materially by what is called a corporate action. \"\"Corp Actions\"\" can really be anything that affects the details of a stock. Common examples are a ticker change, or exchange change, IPO (ie a new ticker), doing a split, or merging with another ticker. All of these events do not change the total value of people's positions. If a stock splits, you might have more shares, but they are worth less per share. A merger is quite similar to a split. The old company's stock is converted two the new companies stock at some ratio (ie 10 shares become 1 share) and then converted 1-to-1 to the new symbol. Shorting a stock that splits is no different. You shorted 10 shares, but after the split those are now 100 shares, when you exit the position you have to deliver back 100 \"\"new\"\" shares, though dollar-for-dollar they are the same total value. I don't see why a merger would affect your short position. The only difference is you are now shorting a different company, so when you exit the position you'll have to deliver shares of the new company back to the brokerage where you \"\"borrowed\"\" the shares you shorted.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
abdab063f599d23956e878c99c00f64e	Why most of apple stock price since 10years have been gained overnight?	[ { "docid": "8b8ddc850fe99c878acf046cdcaa9c0d", "text": "\"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9358beed1bfe134a27092f25f9e2f0a4", "text": "\"Ex-Apple Store employee here. I didn't read the article, but then again I didn't need to. Apple is a great company, blah blah blah. Here's the bottom line: If I sell $15,000 of computers in 6 hours (something that's not so terribly hard to do), I still get paid the same $11.5/hr. Why the fuck should I work harder to sell? Pressure from above. Also they print a list of how much everyone has sold by day, week, month, quarter and YTD. You want to be in the top 5 of that list. Now, I worked there from 2008-2010, so things could be a lot different there now. But I suspect they're not. There's a huge amount of churn, as someone said, and I'd argue that it is entirely to keep happy smiling dumb faces there all the time. The \"\"Lifers\"\" are huge tools who suck big ones. I still love Apple. Just glad I don't work for them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2f87ab35243177e019902c1bf6d3393", "text": "It's important to note that this 10% share price drop comes after a year in which Best Buy's stock price has risen more than 50%. It's done this by focussing on matching Amazon's prices while providing better human-to-human customer service. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/business/best-buy-amazon.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e363c6bd754da752d1092b160f4188f", "text": "\"In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the \"\"Apple and Google and then some other companies\"\" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4192adc2bae1410a5825b4a8f0fa431a", "text": "In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8abe679fe1c9ad63afa4e43cbea0f17a", "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.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bddbceba5540cf233b6ac80b6426420c", "text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c91dbcb174171eab32c85abaddec8f3", "text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3638cff72da83652ce2702193f1f578f", "text": "Their argument is mostly nonsense. Take someone like Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. He has a not very large salary, and makes a lot more money through stock bonuses. You would never, ever expect him to buy Apple shares. And assuming that he doesn't want to end up one day as the richest man in the cemetery, you would expect him to sell significant numbers of shares, independent on whether he expects Apple to go up or down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e276c660232996a2c7ca6794e960005", "text": "You could try to refine your options strategy: For instance you could buy the USD 750 call option(s) you mentioned and at the same time sell (short) call options with a higher strike price, which is above the share price level you expect that Apple will trade at in one year (for instance USD 1,100). By doing this, you would receive the premium of the call option(s) with the higher option, which in turn would help you finance buying your USD 750 call(s). The net effect of this trading strategy would be that you would give up the extra profit you would earn if Apple would rose above USD 1,100 (the strike price of the call option sold short). Your total risk would be even less than with your actual strategy (in my view).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06dc44ec6dd66aab8e5af5fb3f406ed7", "text": "There's a case to be made that companies below a certain market cap have more potential than the higher ones. Consider, Apple cannot grow 100 fold from its current value. At $700B or so in value, that would be a $70T goal, just about the value of all the combined wealth in the entire US. At some point, the laws of large numbers take over, and exponential growth starts to flatten out. On the flip side, Apple may have as good or better chance to rise 10% over the next 6-12 months as a random small cap stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fca05efbdc5641fa55c112669d696760", "text": "I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4f3b37dbe4cf73e5868ed98aff74c06", "text": "Re-invest it in the business, invest it long-term somewhere. It is a very bad business practice to have too much cash lying around. That cash could either generate a higher profit % used in the business or it could generate more money long term being invested somewhere. It seems apple has now done the latter, up until now it's been largely invested in cash-like things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea6d1cf4d269e3f9ed2721df920f0f01", "text": "If you look at S&P 500's closing price for the first trading day on December and January for the last 20 years, you will see that for 10 of these years, stocks did better overall and for 10 others they did worse. Thus you can see that the price of stocks do no necessarily increase. You can play around with the data here", "title": "" }, { "docid": "140c880b96c13bbfc7a40ea088de70d7", "text": "\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb6d0d22b8c60716e0865d82645735d4", "text": "\"There's an expression, \"\"stock prices have no memory.\"\" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115? The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
61373470af25523a4462ca5c2f684191	Did the New York Stock Exchange ever close on a weekday so they could file paperwork?	[ { "docid": "9a402e072142bb6aa6fb48a5ca3abaa0", "text": "Yes, from June 1968 until December 1968, they closed the NYSE every Wednesday so they could catch up on paperwork representing billions of dollars in unprocessed transactions. Even after the NYSE re-opened on Wednesdays in January 1969, they still had to close it early at 2pm for seven more months. Forbes has a description of this: Not to be forgotten, though, is the Paperwork Crunch. In a day of email and the Cloud and trading completed in microseconds, the idea that Wall Street needed Wednesdays off in the late 1960′s to catch up on back-office tasks seems especially quaint. Yet, in 1968, the NYSE found itself sitting on more than $4 billion in unprocessed transactions. Trading had risen to 21 million shares daily; by contrast, even in the heavy volume days in 1929, trading never went above 16 million shares. Papers stacked on desks. A (now old) joke formed: If a fan blew the wrong way in a Wall Street office, visitors below could expect a ticker-tape parade. “Everybody agreed that the securities-processing system had virtually broken down, and the only major point of dispute was who was more responsible for the mess: the back offices of the brokerage firms of the stock-transfer agents,” Securities and Exchange Commission Commissioner Ray Garrett, Jr. said in 1974. Some 100 broker-dealers failed, crumbling under the pressure of fulfilling those back-orders. The fix: an organization akin to the FDIC, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Wall Street would stick to the shortened weeks from June to December; in January, Wednesday trading resumed, though it ended early at 2 for another seven months.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d6614c80a1bfd3d9994c53dd2e02b2ba", "text": "Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b91ea9ba00641d019c71d2986da2f19", "text": "the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20064feafb979b8e5119dc642d0de4de", "text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8594d94978172f7350c0c7453b2e530b", "text": "You can find the NYSE holiday dates listed on the exchange's own site (already linked in answer above), which should obviously be consulted as the most reliable source; they are also published in an article that I have written here: NYSE Holidays 2016, which provides additional information about traditions and events that can be expected to lead to unscheduled closures, and closed dates for holidays that are day-of-month rather than date specific (e.g. President's Day and Memorial Day). NYSE Holidays are not quite identical to those for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, though most US stock exchange dates are the same. Also, note that both the Merc (via the Globex platform) and NYSE Arca have different normal cash sessions and trading hours to the New York Stock Exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3df873e2c35947a0dea12b229e1a6b2", "text": "The NYSE holidays are listed online here: https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars", "title": "" }, { "docid": "456652f5f64d3874280535bca4da1207", "text": "I work in Reserves management at a Central Bank. We work more or less the same hours...but the content of the day is very different. Trading is usually wrapped up by 11-12pm. Then I have a ton a time in the afternoon to hit up the gym, attend economist presentations, grab a lunch, or grab beer with colleagues. Generally very relaxed....very against the industry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b0353eb5873769de175d7620734fdfe", "text": "A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac96c93bd48428d27dd972865d7dd0a", "text": "It turns out that in this special case for New York, they have a law that says that if you are changing your filing status from resident to nonresident, you must use the accrual method for calculating capital gains. So in this case, the date on the papers is the important one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6e2c4144b03eee8275d2caeee234a0b", "text": "\"Company values (and thus stock prices) rely on a much larger time frame than \"\"a weekend\"\". First, markets are not efficient enough to know what a companies sales were over the past 2-3 days (many companies do not even know that for several weeks). They look at performance over quarters and years to determine the \"\"value\"\" of a company. They also look forward, not backwards to determine value. Prior performance only gives a hint of what future performance may be. If a company shut its doors over a weekend and did no sales, it still would have value based on its future ability to earn profits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f90586bfcfdc4185d30d01836631f40", "text": "The easiest route for you to go down will be to consult wikipedia, which will provide a comprehensive list of all US stock exchanges (there are plenty more than the ones you list!). Then visit the websites for those that are of interest to you, where you will find a list of holiday dates along with the trading schedule for specific products and the settlement dates where relevant. In answer to the other part of your question, yes, a stock can trade on multiple exchanges. Typically (unless you instruct otherwise), your broker will route your order to the exchange where it can be matched at the most favorable price to you at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f262d709888908d6bdfc25181e75d2eb", "text": "During a circuit breaker, no trading occurs. These policies have been implemented to maintain exchange liquidity since the NYSE nearly went bankrupt during the 1987 crash because many members had become insolvent. If an order is filled before the halt, it will stand unless busted. During the Flash Crash, many orders were busted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a047aaa5d65764f7aab0f630f8b0167", "text": "\"There is more than one exchange where stock can be traded. For example, there is the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. In fact, if you look at all the exchanges, there is essentially continuous trading 24/7 for many financial instruments (eg US government bonds). The closing price quoted in papers is usually the price at the close on the NYSE. However, options close after that and so there is after-the-close trading in many stocks with active options, so the price at the close of options trading at CBOE is often used. The \"\"real\"\" price is always changing. But for the purpose of discussion, using the closing price in NYSE (for NYSE listed stocks) is pretty standard and unlikely to be questioned. Likewise, using Bloomberg's price makes sense. Using some after-hours or small market quote could lead to differences with commonly accepted numbers - until tomorrow :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7757af949d34fb59fec0397d70582f1", "text": "\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7205cbaecf85917426224c0955e77ce", "text": "\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e4dac327c18a6dab04cb56c157bd9db", "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\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
21cc440fac540fb1a9cd2156b25739ce	How do I get the latest or even realtime information of institutions stock buy/sell action?	[ { "docid": "dd41897ff6e235a6fe27bf154a7bdade", "text": "Of course not, this is confidential information in the same way that I cannot phone up your bank and ask to see a list of the transactions that you have made. Any bank has to be extremely careful about protecting the private transactions of it's customers and would be subject to heavy fines if it revealed this information without the customer's consent.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351", "text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30aaa612684f58901097058380ef7de2", "text": "I'm not disputing whether IB is good to start. I'm disputing that anything going through them is 'low latency.' 50-100ms is a lifetime against high frequency traders. Also, if you're co-locating w/ them and using a direct feed and still getting that latency you're getting ripped off. It should take 100ms for a message to travel between Chicago and NY, let alone between your computer and the exchange one at the same colo.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c7e517d976445ea8fea5aa4c0baa1f4", "text": "What bank, and is there restrictions on the trades? (i.e. they only go through once a week?) I do light medium term trading - maybe 5-10 trades per quarter - and would love to be able to cut out the fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6525fabe5b4facfd715c4d176e28d7c", "text": "They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e7091ecfe304bce4558075d5b464b1c", "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.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd99ef5267bc2cb10f23ee1f62bc9f82", "text": "I've never seen a dividend, split or other corporate action during the day, but I have seen trade suspended a few times when something big happened. The market opening price is not in general the same as the close of the previous day. It can gap up or down and does frequently. I don't know of an api to find out if the dividend was cash or stock, but stock dividends are a lot less common.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb67ec3740545851f323621075d7a83c", "text": "There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bee5a63f15bde0552214d71f7f7654fb", "text": "If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da3bb20b815bd711a1d70bb82fd9fd3f", "text": "In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77910cb1a35f144cf084c07e12dd9ba9", "text": "I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "420f4726f5eff4d17dbcf18d85d62d3b", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93c269eb0810f9a10c3ac6a7948633d1", "text": "\"any major brokerage firm will have something like this. more speculative rumors will typically not make their way to the \"\"news\"\" there, though; the news feeds are from established wires, who don't report on those things until confirmed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7883e2d280b6f58e8966be6b1ae7cdc3", "text": "No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da566a2cdaad2c8b83676062a6e257f", "text": "\"Can you give me a rundown of what I'm seeing? Is this basically a super zoomed in tracker of a current stock or something? Where a stock fluctuates a few cents up/down on the day, and you just trade before it goes down, then trade as it goes up or what? EDIT: Is this really live? Can you say, \"\"Yes this is live narwalls\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "557de771f5d36064911e7a767f197b57", "text": "\"In US public stock markets there is no difference between the actions individual retail traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take and the actions institutional/corporate traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take. The only difference is the cost of those actions. For example, if you become a Registered Market Maker on, say, the BATS stock exchange, you'll get some amazing rebates and reduced transaction prices; however, in order to qualify for Registered Market Maker status you have to maintain constant orders in the book for hundreds of equities at significant volumes. An individual retail trader is certainly permitted to do that, but it's probably too expensive. Algorithmic trading is not the same as automated trading (algorithmic trading can be non-automated, and automated trading can be non-algorithmic), and both can be anywhere from low- to high-frequency. A low-frequency automated strategy is essentially indistinguishable from a person clicking their mouse several times per day, so: no, from a legal or regulatory perspective there is no special procedure an individual retail trader has to follow before s/he can automate a trading strategy. (Your broker, on the other hand, may have all sorts of hoops for you to jump through in order to use their automation platform.) Last (but certainly not least) you will almost certainly lose money hand over fist attempting bid-ask scalping as an individual retail trader, whether your approach is algorithmic or not, automated or not. Why? Because the only way to succeed at bid-ask scalping is to (a) always be at/near the front of the queue when a price change occurs in your favor, and (b) always cancel your resting orders before they are executed when a price change occurs against you. Unless your algorithms are smarter than every other algorithm in the industry, an individual retail trader operating through a broker's trading platform cannot react quickly enough to succeed at either of those. You would have to eschew the broker and buy direct market access to even have a chance, and that's the point at which you're no longer a retail trader. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
92304f944cab74f998185b6ac2a17daa	College student interested in starting a stock portfolio, how much should I invest?	[ { "docid": "43ffaa8b095662452f8d5ec8a43c82bc", "text": "You should invest a trivial (<500$USD) amount of money in a stock portfolio. If you aren't able to make more on the market than the interest rates of your loans, you are losing money. This question has discussed this topic as well.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0b2ee1ec448b87a1e6e61d1e910eee61", "text": "\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eba0ee9b9ecd19532789be1d9146812", "text": "\"I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer. Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend \"\"an hour per month on each stock\"\" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that \"\"should be\"\" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82ba87675f91884a32831141b0155fb4", "text": "I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f38eecf4850782e35550e424c56d93d", "text": "\"Kid, you need to start thinking in thresholds. There are several monetary thresholds that separate your class from a more well funded class. 1) You cannot use margin with less than $2000 dollars Brokers require that you have at least $2000 before they will lend to you 2) In 2010, Congress banned under 21 year olds from getting access to credit. UNLESS they get cosigned. This means that even if you have $2000, no broker will give you margin unless you have a (good) credit history already. There was a good reason for this, but its based on the assumption that everyone is stupid, not the assumption that some people are objective thinkers. 3) The brokers that will open an account for you have high commissions. The commissions are so high that it will destroy any capital gains you may make with your $1000. For the most part. 4) The pattern day trader rule. You cannot employ sophisticated risk management while being subject to the pattern day trader rule. It basically limits you from trading 3 times a day (its more complicated than that read it yourself) if you have less than $25,000 in one account. 5) Non-trade or stock related investments: Buy municipal or treasury bonds. They will give you more than a savings account would, and municipals are tax free. This isn't exactly what I would call liquid though - ie. if you wanted to access your money to invest in something else on a whim. 6) What are you studying? If its anything technical then you might get a good idea that you could risk your money on to create value. But I would stick to high growth stocks before blowing your $1000 on an idea. Thats not exactly what I would call \"\"access to capital\"\". 7) Arbitrage. Lets say you know a friend that buys the trendy collectors shoes at discount and sells them for a profit. He might do this with one $200 pair of tennis shoes, and then use the $60 profit different to go buy video games for himself. If he wanted to scale up, he couldn't because he never has more than $200 to play with. In comparison, you could do 5 pairs ($200 x 5) and immediately have a larger operation than him, making a larger profit ($60 x 5 = $300, now you have $1300 and could do it again with 6 pairs to make an even great er profit) not because you are better or worked at it, but solely because you have more capital to start with. Keep an eye out for arbitrage opportunities, usually there is a good reason they exist if you notice it: the market is too small and illiquid to scale up with, or the entire market will be saturated the next day. (Efficient Market Theory, learn about it) 8) Take everything I just taught you, and make a \"\"small investor newsletter\"\" website with subscribers. Online sites have low overhead costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f027ce814b88c3ba150778d55c32c992", "text": "\"I'd answer it this way: What do you want to do? I'd say any amount is acceptable from as low as $100. When you look at the specific \"\"tree\"\" of investing paying $5 for a $100 seems unacceptable. However when observing the \"\"forest\"\" what does it matter if you \"\"waste\"\" $5 on a commission? Your friends (and maybe you) probably waste more than $5 multiple times per day. For them buying a latte might empower them, if buying another share of HD, for a similar cost, empowers you than do it. In the end who will be better off? Studies show that the more important part of building a significant investment portfolio is actually doing it. Rate of return and the cost of investing pales in comparison to actually doing it. How many of your peers are doing similar things? You are probably in very rare company. If it makes you happy, it is a wonderful way to spend your money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3a113c0cd742cb216d9b5d5517d7205", "text": "\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e67ccb30c3a5db2fe0d4415199808c70", "text": "You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beb115f4b44422283c389edc50a1b8ed", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a7ff7c2d3aec7c39cd474e4c611c2d", "text": "The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b706705ca32fdc395379f7745cec687c", "text": "There is no ideal number of stocks you should own. There are several factors you should consider though. First, how actively do you want to manage your portfolio. If you want to be very active then the number of stocks you own should be based on the amount of time you have to research the company, by reading SEC filings and listening to conference calls, so you are not surprised when the company reports every quarter. If you don't want to be very active, then you are better off buying solid companies that have a good reputation and good history of performance. Second, you should decide how much risk you are willing to take. If you have $10,000 that you can afford to lose, then you can put your money into more risky stocks or into fewer stocks, which could potentially have a higher return. If you want your $10,000 grow (or lose) with the market, better off, again, going with the good rep and history stocks or a variety of stocks. Third, this goes along with your risk to some extent, but you should consider if you are looking for short term or long term gains? If you are looking to put your money in the market for the short term, you will probably be looking at fewer stocks with more money in each. If you are looking for long term, you will be around 5 stocks that you swap as they reach goals you set out for each stock. In my opinion, and I am not a financial expert, I like to stay at around 5 companies, mostly for the fact that it is about the ideal number of companies to keep track of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ce8759db51b2ce834797cbbd3ed6464", "text": "\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619", "text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa5390be2d2d6ec9cad8daaab54faee", "text": "Buddy I know how a student investment club works, my school had a great one but thanks for the explanation. Doesn't change the fact that a valuation by some college kids is meaningless, but you wouldn't understand that because you're still a 20 year old kid with no industry experience. I love that you're bragging about your college to someone who has already graduated and made it into the industry, shows you really have no accomplishments to speak of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
34d54e890af14c884e1be94e41959a76	Deal with stock PSEC	[ { "docid": "b2ba7e62423d2a5034918ec4625a3eab", "text": "It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "73d3680c61fcca147e344498ea80ad56", "text": "generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc", "text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8121c431651f7b2b2fdc9de6f5f909e", "text": "Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d666c38057c10de0df25b0b819739a26", "text": "It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5", "text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "406244a3eb0a84e25e7a7adb357086ab", "text": "\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc", "text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0ed9ac0958f77d0eea4a9b671ece20a", "text": "You can contact the french agency for stock regulation and ask them : http://www.amf-france.org/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f41222ce7dc5831f6d274d9d46090a", "text": "I know nice and free stock screener for UK (and 20+ exchanges) - https://unicornbay.com/screener?f=exchange_str\|%3D\|LSE;&s=MarketCapitalization\|desc&p=1\|20 from Unicorn Bay. It supports both fundamental and technical analysis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a99f73816bfe28fe29088b4b48d39f5", "text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6c723d9270816257b82bf1b4ecf93d7", "text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e43c9ee414d6a7a2bde3ec4186fd12a6", "text": "you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "955f544a4d715c96eb6dd62f882f564e", "text": "Why do you care? In any case, you can easily Google the answer... Effective Sunday, April 2, 2017 for trade date Monday, April 3, 2017, and pending all relevant CFTC regulatory review periods, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange”) will list Monday Weekly Options on the E-mini Standard and Poor’s Stock Price Index Futures and Standard and Poor’s 500 Stock Price Index Futures contracts (collectively the “Contracts”) for trading on CME Globex and for submission for clearing via CME ClearPort as described in Appendix A below. Appendix B below provides the Exchange fee schedule for the Contracts. source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959", "text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47bf776843d018598f96343213a8cc9a", "text": "I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e08c998eb940cda76703ac0e18c3e2e6	Stock Exchange price target	[ { "docid": "769dc868f0dcee762401d804833ea80f", "text": "\"Price targets aren't set day to day, because of market fluctuations are so high from day to day. But in their stock recommendations, brokerage firms will often set price targets for \"\"one year out.\"\" These targets aren't set in stone, so use them at your risk.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe", "text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f34458f083eae68c8949828e68620000", "text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ff491bfc4b2f438ed6236f9c30b6548", "text": "\"I've alway thought that it was strange, but the \"\"price\"\" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, \"\"fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price\"\", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, \"\"open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20\"\", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7602775b21de86391db58f419dad795a", "text": "Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe41bd844ccdd880ae9b1f59abe82487", "text": "\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd1d8777b2b595b63e3e30e5f64116f0", "text": "December, 8, 2011 ( 01:40 pm) :- Nifty breached the 5100 level with in the 1 hour of trade but after the announce of our country also affecting by the European crisis disapproval of the FDI in multi brands also made and session of market is in the profit booking mode. Nifty facing strong resistance at 5150 - 5180 under this Nifty trend keep weak for a down target of 4940 level. Banking index continuously providing good returns everyday with the really of SBI, AXIS & ICICI Bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d8dbc7258bcc02dbd72eb71e62cbbe", "text": "There isn't a single universal way to reference a stock, there are 4 major identifiers with many different flavours of exchange ticker (see xkcd:Standards) I believe CUSIPs and ISINs represent a specific security rather than a specific listed instrument. This means you can have two listed instruments with one ISIN but different SEDOLs because they are listed in different places. The difference is subtle but causes problems with settlement Specifically on your question (sorry I got sidetracked) take a look at CQS Symbol convention to see what everything means", "title": "" }, { "docid": "316e57e2c474493f63b6f03c78c7bfcf", "text": "What you should compare is SPX, SPY NAV, and ES fair value. Like others have said is SPX is the index that others attempt to track. SPY tracks it, but it can get a tiny bit out of line as explained here by @Brick . That's why they publish NAV or net asset value. It's what the price should be. For SPY this will be very close because of all the participants. The MER is a factor, but more important is something called tracking error, which takes into account MER plus things like trading expenses plus revenue from securities lending. SPY (the few times I've checked) has a smaller tracking error than the MER. It's not much of a factor in pricing differences. ES is the price you'll pay today to get SPX delivered in the future (but settled in cash). You have to take into account dividends and interest, this is called fair value. You can find this usually every morning so you can compare what the futures are saying about the underlying index. http://www.cnbc.com/pre-markets/ The most likely difference is you're looking at different times of the day or different open/close calculations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16fc45daadb1b77449a00539b723e29d", "text": "There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92c9301f6148be2b3f14b088581243d3", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8accfe15c696a664fe3605ddf9390c52", "text": "Most likely economics then. What I'm looking to gain is an understanding of how the market works so that I may take that knowledge and use it to make investments, buy stocks, or possibly start a business. I have a very large amount of time between my studies for my classes and I think it would be a waste to not learn these tools (to give you a reason for my interest in this).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60955967a9968054fd87c5d6a11d7880", "text": ".on intraday basis in stock market sensex start its trading at 15878, up 64 points, and Nifty is at 4752, up 18 points.today trend is expecting volatile. 1-Buy AANJANEYA @ 510 , stoploss 500 , target 518 - 526 - 538 – 550. 2-HUL buy above 410 with the target of 414 with the stop loss of 406.50.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba9683a3eaa2a07d63ac4edb4a7b5fee", "text": "The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfd44d1b8f2c9b7a99bb5efdee49d5a1", "text": "The definition of market cap is exactly shares oustanding * share price, so something is wrong here. It seems that the share price is expressed in pence rather pounds. There's a note at the bottom: Currency in GBp. Note the 'p' rather than 'P'. So the share price of '544' is actually 544p, i.e. £5.44. However it's not really clear just from the annotations which figures are in pence and which are actually in pounds. It seems that the market cap is in pounds but the enterprise value is in pence, given that 4.37 billion is about the right value in pounds whereas 441 billion only really makes sense if expressed in pence. It looks like they actually got the enterprise value wrong by a factor of 100. Perhaps their calculation treated the share price as being denominated in pounds rather than pence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "334ba78acb74a04355fe82d552a4d003", "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.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fecf043f31495e60306e7224ce6e3865	New to Stock Trading	[ { "docid": "bc6465a444d8872f0a0363390dbde207", "text": "\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a4e7fc154723ae86557de42ee699f07", "text": "Investopedia got some good tutorials on stocks and a good simulator to play around without loosing hard earned money. http://www.investopedia.com/university/stocks/ http://www.investopedia.com/simulator/", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6b064ac71a22895db36a8e842295dc54", "text": "\"Traditional brokers There are tons of players in this market, especially in USA. You have traditional brokers, brokers tied to your bank and a bunch of startups. The easiest is probably a broker tied to your bank, because you probably don't have to wait to fund your brokerage account and can start trading immediately. Often the older/traditional brokers don't have very intuitive interfaces, it's the startups who do a better job at this. But honestly it doesn't really matter, because you can use reporting services that are different from the services you use to execute your trades. Meaning that you only use the interface of your broker to execute trades (buy or sell), and use third party services to monitor your holdings. Monitoring services: Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Sigfig, Morningstar,... are services allowing you to monitor your holdings. But you can't execute trades with them. Start-ups: Then there are a bunch of startups that offer investment services besides the traditional brokers. Start-up > Robinhood The most ambitious one is Robinhood, which offers the same service as a traditional broker, but completely free (most of the traditional brokers charge a flat fee and/or percentage when buying/selling hodlings) and with an intuitive interface. They're mobile first, but announced they will be launching their service on the web soon. Start-up > Acorns Another popular, mobile-first start-up is Acorns. They offer a lazy-investing service which rounds your everyday purchases and uses the change to invest. It's great when investing is not on your mind, but you still want to invest without realizing it. Start-ups > Robo-advisors Robo-advisors auto-invest your money across a bunch of funds picked based on your risk profile. Because the robo-advisers are fairly new, they often have the most intuitive interfaces. These robo-advisors often don't allow you to pick individual holdings, so these services are best when you want to passively invest. Meaning you don't want to look at it very often, and let them do the investing for you. There are tons of robo-advisor start-ups: Betterment, Wealthfront, Personal Capital, Sigfig, FutureAdvisor,... Also bigger parties jumped on this trend with their offerings: Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Ally Managed Portfolio, Vanguard Personal Advisor, etc. Summary: It's fun to pick individual stocks, but if you start out it can be overwhelming. Robinhood is probably the best start, they have reduced functionality, but gets you going with an attractive interface. But soon you'll realize it's extremely hard to beat the market. Meaning that hand-picking stocks statistically gives you a worse return than just buying into the general stock market (like S&P500). So you can decide to just buy one fund with a traditional broker that covers the general stock market. Or you can decide to try out one of the many robo-advisors. They haven't been around that long, so it's hard to tell how effective these are and whether they beat the market. If you're young, and you believe in start-ups (who often try to challenge the traditional players), try out one of the robo-advisors. If you want to play a bit and are addicted to your smartphone, try out Robinhood. If you are addicted to your phone, but don't want to check up on your investments all the time, go for Acorns. Of course you can combine all these. Lastly, there are tons of cryptocurrencies which might give you a large return. Tons of startups offer intuitive interfaces to trade cryptocurrencies like Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken. But beware, there is a lot of risk involved in trading cryptocurrencies, it's completely unregulated etc. But definitely check them out. Oh, and you can also invest by giving out loans through LendingClub, Prosper etc. Who can you trust? Above gives you an overview of your options intermingled with some reasoning. But regarding your question \"\"who can I trust\"\" in terms of advice, it's up to yourself. Most traditional broker services don't give you any advice at all, you're on your own. Robo-advisors don't give you advice either, but let their proprietary algorithm do the job. Are these reliable? Nobody can tell, they haven't been around long enough, and they need to go through a bear market (a crash) to see how they respond during rough times. Some robo-advisors offer you personal consultancy (I believe Sigfig and PersonalCapital) does this (limited to a few hours per year). But obviously they'll try to promote their robo-advisor services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263e89f9838c5e3af00d6b60d70cb784", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4afa8c2f6d30d437aba51b7bd25b53b", "text": "Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1231f80481452382c7c0b5239bb20d5d", "text": "Investing money in the stock market with [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) is a great way to build wealth and plan for the future. However, few people know what the stock market is let alone how to begin investing in it. It is important to understand how companies and stocks work before investing in them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bbfa7d7bbe88354359e0a432ac667b2", "text": "Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7", "text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c47d7a2b0d4192aa850717952892a9a", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2687a838a4c2f0effb07b4ec3585b60", "text": "Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9d304e3534a77bd72c83b1d96562ea9", "text": "In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92174efaea066aa7b16d666a6d03c5b8", "text": "\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23ef52c9774a6604d07c1c6fcc51ba5c", "text": "\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f241d0bb322fd98b425318cd14c2628", "text": "Okay, how good is my programmed test going to be if I'm new to trading? I thought the biggest flaw to algorithm trading is the people that write the code? I am still trying to develop my own sense of swing reading with significant structure, price action, and other technicals. I was going to use the click-by-click, ninjatrader method to see what works best. So, between your answer and my question. If I was going to buy data, from what stocks would be the best data to mine. L?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd5ae4ad802cd3b96a0367f8d5fadfb", "text": "\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "847ae86a47e9b2c90a58034eaaf24a42", "text": "To learn more about the market, read as much as possible. Read articles on Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, etc. Also, any time you just have the tv in the background, have it on CNBC. It's crazy what all you will pick up on even just in the background. Like someone else said, create a virtual portfolio and actively trade. You can also subscribe to sites like Investopedia and they will send you articles about analysis techniques and stocks/industries to watch. If you want to learn some basic tools for corporate roles, then learn Excel, Tableau, and how to write SQL.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96eaaf4d4da27faaa9cee053a3e9931b", "text": "\"If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a \"\"desk\"\" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is \"\"Flash Boys\"\" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1bd1a25c64d4ac4ee613eb27a80932f3	How can I calculate the volatility(standard deviation) of a stock price? and/or ROI (return on investment) of a stock?	[ { "docid": "2737555cec11157babb0aff5bd578d75", "text": "\"the \"\"how\"\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \"\"pandas\"\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7a498ff5b209063fefb4cac4f013b83", "text": "Use the Black-Scholes formula. If you know the current price, an options strike price, time until expiration, and risk-free interest rate, then knowing the market price of the option will tell you what the market's estimation of the volatility is. This does rely on a few assumptions, such as Gaussian random walk, but those are reasonable assumptions for most stocks. You can also get a list of past stock prices, put them in Excel, and ask Excel to calculate the standard deviation with stdev.s(), but that gives you the past volatility. The market's estimate of future volatility is more relevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58c92377c44bc8c6287bf7235b8014a8", "text": "ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability. The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3) m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "427040f8683b2a11bdd39178e27642de", "text": "My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use? I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel. But, gasp I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e708f9f70f348131c33139a46aa03b34", "text": "One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17f38c31a0e4926f6d8060a3b997e667", "text": "\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1(1+.1)(1+.2)=1.11.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e0a75beec67e1583279b4a0d8dae31a", "text": "\"Certainly no one knows in advance how much a stock is going to swing around. However, there are measures of how much it has swung around in the past, and there are people who will estimate the probability. First of all, there's a measure of an individual stock's volatility, commonly referred to as \"\"beta\"\". A stock with a beta of 1 tends to rise and fall about as much as the market at large. A stock with a beta of 2, in the meantime, would rise 10% when the market is up 5%. These are, of course, historical averages. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) Secondly, you can get an implied measure of volatility expectations by looking at options pricing. If a stock is particularly volatile, the chance of a big price move will be baked into the price of the stock options. (Note also that other things affect options pricing, such as the time value of money.) For an options-based measure of the volatility of the whole market, see the Volatility Index aka the \"\"Fear Gauge\"\", VIX. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIX Chart: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EVIX Looking at individual stocks as a group (and there's an oxymoron for you), individual stocks are definitely much more likely to have big moves than the market. Besides Netflix, consider the BP oil spill, or the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima incident (yow!). I don't have any detailed statistics on quantitatively how much, mind you, but in application, a standard piece of advice says not to put more than 5% of your portfolio in a single company's stock. Diversification protects you. (Alternatively, if you're trying to play Mr. Sophisticated Stock-Picker instead of just buying an index fund, you can also buy insurance through stock options: hedging your bets. Naturally, this will eat up part of your returns if your pick was a good one).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efdd180becfba8054bd6540931d916d8", "text": "\"Volume is really only valuable when compared to some other volume, either from a historical value, or from some other stock. The article you linked to doesn't provide specific numbers for you to evaluate whether volume is high or low. Many people simply look at the charts and use a gut feel for whether a day's volume is \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" in their estimation. Typically, if a day's volume is not significantly taller than the usual volume, you wouldn't call it high. The same goes for low volume. If you want a more quantitative approach, a simple approach would be to use the normal distribution statistics: Calculate the mean volume and the standard deviation. Anything outside of 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations (either high or low) could be significant in your analysis. You'll need to pick your own numbers (1.5 or 2.0 are just numbers I pulled out of thin air.) It's hard to read anything specific into volume, since for every seller, there's a buyer, and each has their reasons for doing so. The article you link to has some good examples of using volume as a basis for strengthening conclusions drawn using other factors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882", "text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80", "text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698", "text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ee6ef014bea7ddd8fbdc6c5770d5a80", "text": "For implied volatility it is okey to use Black and scholes but what to do with the historical volatility which carry the effect of past prices as a predictor of future prices.And then precisely the conditional historical volatility.i suggest that you must go with the process like, for stock returns 1) first download stock prices into excel sheet 2) take the natural log of (P1/po) 3) calculate average of the sample 4) calculate square of (X-Xbar) 5) take square root of this and you will get the standard deviation of your required data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6360e82fca576b1e4ac690aac5a37829", "text": "\"I looked at data from Sept 2010 to present: Standard deviation is what shows the spread shape of returns over time, and it meanS that about 2/3 of the time, AAPL return was within +/- 1.65 higher/lower than the daily average return which was .21 %. Not sure where to go with this except to suggest that in fact, AAPL is more volatile than the S&P and even another random tech company. With time, I'd probably come up with a list of stock more volatile. I know that when I look at a list of stocks I track on Yahoo, there are always a few that are just as volatile on a given day. Excel makes the above analysis easy to do for a given stock, and it's actually an interesting exercise, at least for me. Disclaimer - the shape of stock returns is not a bell curve, and STdev is just a best fit. Edit - given more time to tinker on excel, it would be interesting to see how the stock's volatility tracked over the years, did it increase or does it feel that way due to the high price? A $20 swing on a $600 stock is the same as a $2 swing on a $60 stock, yet \"\"up $20\"\" sounds huge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53b6b1913a3f7ad27e53d3412cdfb93b", "text": "\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad95ac2efa8c6f348e8f9de9c1bdc83f", "text": "Risk and return always go hand by hand. Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ee753bf0e789e557df6966e4cfcbc9", "text": "You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db43947227c383f6e6a93cc8c27cf938", "text": "\"A minor tangent. One can claim the S&P has a mean return of say 10%, and standard deviation of say 14% or so, but when you run with that, you find that the actual returns aren't such a great fit to the standard bell curve. Market anomalies producing the \"\"100-year flood\"\" far more often than predicted over even a 20 year period. This just means that the model doesn't reflect reality at the tails, even if the +/- 2 standard deviations look pretty. This goes for the Black-Sholes (I almost abbreviated it to initials, then thought better, I actually like the model) as well. The distinction between American and European is small enough that the precision of the model is wider than the difference of these two option styles. I believe if you look at the model and actual pricing, you can determine the volatility of a given stock by using prices around the strike price, but when you then model the well out of money options, you often find the market creating its own valuation.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e65bda92edce0e2ca5409a0c1267cd7b	List of web sites or online forums for stock picking and security analysis	[ { "docid": "03063e9a071a4a6c6089ee14eae261ae", "text": "This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944", "text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691d30be5ea3ac2d0d01dfe13974d43d", "text": "For economics I recommend mises or these videos to get you started. For daily critical analysis of financial markets, keynesian government policies, and other interesting reading I recommend zerohedge. I've learned more about financial markets and government regulations by reading the comments section on zerohedge articles than anywhere else on the internet. The comment section is very raw (i.e. lots of fucking cursing) but there are some jewels of information in there. For daily critical thinking I suggest lewrockwell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b63dbe66dfdd7ba1c1fbc3d855852c6d", "text": "A classic text on growth stock picking is Common Stock and Uncommon Profits By Philip Fisher, with a 15 point checklist. Here is a summary of the list that you can check out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46651b3b3476d6ee2c361efaaa80b1bb", "text": "It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "200210b493be3700afa3184f92fdd8aa", "text": "Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5596b89a7503739bfe1ed3ba97b4b993", "text": "Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d89bd3e78032df761450cc9d31c8f68e", "text": "The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66c2e069c3503182b76c10aac73e22e5", "text": "Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e56536646a6bb78b874992c3447e0b7", "text": "Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5133e8a0da48d7a0a7bccf8988781a6a", "text": "Well, that is why I am asking questions, and seeing if there is any catch. I want to read up before I actually trade. Before I trades stocks I read for like 2 years, learning as much as I could. I am not about to jump in, but it is something I would like to trade eventually. I know I need to do my due diligence on it. The reason I came here was to get information on the topic before I decided on anything, including books and websites.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43b5e2eff2438cb0614ae2ecf7afe2da", "text": "Yes, Alpha Vantage. As MasticatedTesticle points out, it is worth asking where it originally comes from, but it looked to me like a solid source for, in particular, intraday trading data. Additionally, Yahoo finance is done on R (zoo, PerformanceAnalytics libraries don't work anymore as far as I can tell). The numbers look right to me tho, let me know if things are off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16fc45daadb1b77449a00539b723e29d", "text": "There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce676212f9a76f4a1caaaed0e929408", "text": "\"ycharts.com has \"\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\"\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9035e3042845744753020ebe12989ddf", "text": "I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f8e6eca1fcb5ed94418dc1ea2b9f3e84	Do precious metals and mining sector index funds grow as much as the general stock market?	[ { "docid": "912d1ca43a19afff15b211b4e1968178", "text": "Metals and Mining is an interesting special case for stocks. It's relationship to U.S. equity (SPX) is particularly weak (~0.3 correlation) compared to most stocks so it doesn't behave like equity. However, it is still stock and not a commodities index so it's relation to major metals (Gold for instance) is not that strong either (-0.6 correlation). Metals and Mining stocks have certainly underperformed the stock market in general over the past 25years 3% vs 9.8% (annualized) so this doesn't look particularly promising. It did have a spectacularly good 8 year period ('99-'07) though 66% (annualized). It's worth remembering that it is still stock. If the market did not think it could make a reasonable profit on the stock the price would decrease until the market thought it could make the same profit as other equity (adjusted slightly for the risk). So is it reasonable to expect that it would give the same return as other stock on average? Yes.. -ish. Though as has been shown in the past 25 years your actual result could vary wildly both positive and negative. (All numbers are from monthly over the last 25 years using VGPMX as a M&M proxy)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9c9eaf83dd1c479f504d360c86cb7bd2", "text": "\"A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up \"\"too far, too fast.\"\" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8a6a0a777a8c738708d9138af1f4966", "text": "The price of the stock is not really relevant, as your return is measured as a percentage, 6% return on a $100 stock is the same as a 6% return on a $1 stock, you just hold 100 times more shares at the lower price. I personally really like Eurosun Mining ESM, they are greatly undervalued and have the potential to double or triple in the very near term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ab8da72c085bedff94ecbf207642e2a", "text": "The S&P 500 represents a broadly diversified basket of stocks. Silver is a single metal. If all else is equal, more diversification means less volatility. A better comparison would be the S&P 500 vs. a commodities index, or silver vs. some individual stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06d32a236f38332d9935e7c8dbab66f6", "text": "\"Like anything else, the price/value of gold is driven by supply and demand. Mining adds about 2% a year to the supply. Then the question is, will the demand in a given year rise by more or less than 2%. ON AVERAGE, the answer is \"\"more.\"\" That may not be true in any given year, and was untrue for whole DECADES of the 1980s and 1990s, when the price of gold fell steadily. On the other hand, demand for gold has risen MUCH more than 2% a year in the 2000s, for reasons discussed by others. That is seen in the six-fold rise in price, from about $300 an ounce to $1800 an ounce over the past ten years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "029604fb1bc4681115e58f3ce904a708", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b", "text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "550a87849ede22f46d68fc8a9722b6d3", "text": "\"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to \"\"closed as duplicate of...\"\" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f64ef46bb0260c8b78aaf58038bcb06", "text": "Mining is income at the value at time of earning, I would use an index like XBX to determine price. Asset appreciation is capital gains. These aspects of crypto-assets are not a gray area in the US financial sector, and have been addressed for almost half a decade now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a07a5f80321b3163b20fe5c79bd464ed", "text": "I don't think that's the case. I mean, of course some of the new money supply is making it into the stock market, but I think it's because of the factors I listed. The money supply isn't growing faster now than it has in the past. Here is M2 since 1980 on a log scale (because a percent change is more relevant than a change in raw dollars, just like stock market returns). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxeb (I am using M2 because it's a more complete measure of liquidity) Here is the percent change over time in M2, just to show that the QE isn't really doing anything out of the ordinary. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxek Here you can see the inflation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fxes What quantitative easing has done is drive bond prices lower, which I already mentioned. It can also be argued that QE has expanded wealth inequality, but I already mentioned that as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/06/25/how-federal-reserve-quantitative-easing-expanded-wealth-inequality/#1f7528a321eb", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085", "text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3441d94495464df9250686f3ee189cf", "text": "As one can see here, the world population is growing. Assuming worldwide demand for gold is a function of population, the question you have to ask is whether gold mining outpaces population growth. Just eyeballing it, I'd say they're about even although annual production is far noisier. Keep in mind that gold extraction is not an easy process though. At the end of the day, gold is only worth what you can trade it for, just like any other store of value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611", "text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3ea2d85b77310aaa66303551243d31", "text": "Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04825d1b5ed5d5072cccdf9a45c52fc0", "text": "If you want to stay in the sub 30% range to avoid 'high utilization' on your card, make sure your credit is > 3.33x your usage. For your numbers, a 2500 limit would probably keep you out of 'high utilization'. The primary reason to do this is to stay off your lender's 'high risk' list. Due to the risk perceived by CCC's, accounts with greater than 30% utilization are reported as high utilization. Keep in mind that utilization does not have a history. So you can drop your utilization a couple of billing cycles before you apply for a high cost item (e.g. car or house) and your score should bump up a bit.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4adff98984b6dec5642982440a149930	Saving tax for long term stock investment capital gain by quiting my current job?	[ { "docid": "51a1117c14284044ce3bc0d9893afe61", "text": "The capital gain is counted as part of your income. So with a million capital gain you will be in a high tax bracket, and have to pay the corresponding capital gains tax rate on the million.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4348256d513a9d8a2d3a2b5139d8f9f", "text": "Reducing your income by 20k is guaranteed to lower your tax bill by less than 20k (because there are no tax rates greater than 100%). Your goal shouldn't be to minimize taxes but to maximize total net income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4450694f0f396cc189e3c9ca36ec6823", "text": "The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "494c34a83089d0334a2aadf6ea57f290", "text": "You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ee5b35b0455e555d9c22058508cc985", "text": "\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bc346d33311b92b56c2ac137a508a7", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ad101812c46ae30dfe93a1ece147d7", "text": "\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \"\"tax free\"\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \"\"mother returning to the workforce\"\" treatment in salary negotiations).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "175dcedba74db8def73e11e4fc70a64f", "text": "Generally, it is considered a bad idea to put significant parts of your money in your own employer's stock, no matter how great the company looks right now. The reason is the old 'don't put all your eggs in one basket'. If there is ever a serious issue with your company, and you lose your job because they go down the drain, you don't only lose your job, but also your savings (and potentially 401k if you have their stock there too). So you end unemployed and without all your savings. Of course, this is a generic tip, and depending on the situation, it might be ok to ignore it, that's your decision. Just remember to have an eye on it, so you can get out while they are still floating - typically employees are not the first to know when it goes downhill, and when you see it in the papers, it's too late. Typically, you get a more secure and independent return-on-invest by buying into a well-managed mixed portfolio", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7656f373c9e4cfffccc92e080131a065", "text": "If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c13cf9a0b369acedef93cf0ee9c8cc", "text": "If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac", "text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "209e0a3561e14be2b77fe04a34c4f754", "text": "Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bfbb3a0f9d2ac58c9bb99f9390209f7", "text": "\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b0d18312b23a3ac8eacafac641a4c03", "text": "\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7455173c32b84deeccb016729e52c76d", "text": "You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb4dc2382fe36b9c9d01a1e44edaee35", "text": "IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fa3e4c93672a2ca25f75d6d1d809c08", "text": "\"This stock is the same as any other, but you need to keep clear in your head that you and your company are now different entities. You (the person) will pay tax on capital gains and losses when you sell any stock that you hold in your own name. You'll also owe \"\"regular\"\" tax if you draw a salary, etc. The fact that it may be \"\"your\"\" company does not change these things. The company will not recognize a gain by selling stock to raise capital since it's nominally exchanging things of equal value, say $100 in cash for $100 in stock. In order to sell stock, however, you MIGHT need to register with the SEC depending on how you're going about finding your investors, so keep that in mind.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28736c47950db9528b1fd9ac554aa8c6", "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 profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cb7dc78992a104bfa7c327e9ef9c5917	What is high trading volume in a stock indicative of? Is high liquidity a good thing or a bad thing?	[ { "docid": "75e51cb67a3b7e9ba97858666994b26e", "text": "\"High liquidity doesn't necessarily mean that \"\"everybody is getting rid of the stock\"\", since somebody is obviously buying whatever stock that is being sold. Also, as mentioned, low liquidity may mean that you would have trouble selling the stock in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d91a0fb3d7176d422c9f62acef216adc", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6078bec30a597d160be10026c793a07", "text": "\"Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (\"\"thinly traded stocks\"\") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ffd01eef86a6cb41ff9c06ef701b72b", "text": "In general, liquidity is a good thing, because it means it is easy for you to buy or sell a stock. Since high liquidity stocks have a lot of trading, the bid-ask spreads tend to be pretty low. That means you can go into the market and trade easily and cheaply at just about any time. For low liquidity stocks, the bid-ask spreads can get pretty high, so it can make it hard or expensive to get into or out of your trades. On the flip side, everyone pays attention to high liquidity stocks, so it's harder to get an edge in your trading. For a company like Microsoft there are 30-50 full time analysts that cover them, thousands of professional traders and millions of investors in general all reading the same new articles and looking through the same financials as you. But in low liquidity stocks, there probably aren't any analysts, a few professional traders and maybe a few thousand total investors, so it can be easier to find a good buy (or sell). In general, high liquidity doesn't mean that everyone is selling or everyone is buy, it just means everyone is trading.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a", "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.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fa967e62946c3b1420aa199448e2f81", "text": "Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e66340f5e47d7b4e5efcfa85587b02db", "text": "It's a really big stretch to assume that a particular 10Q release will have the exact same impact on trading volume, trading price, and volatility as a prior release, in a different quarter, under a different set of circumstances and a different set of results, which is what you seem to be implying when you suggest that a lack of volume in response to one quarter's results should therefore be used as a benchmark. I think traders and the HFT firms are a lot smarter than you think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd22fb4b04a3bab76b172ea9a18a837", "text": "Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur. This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ac7c6630baa51700ec34153a9559f2b", "text": "Okay I don't know where my disconnect was, in my mind I was viewing that as a negative for some reason haha. Thanks! That makes sense. What is your perspective on the large amount of companies buying back shares right now?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "415fd28ed28d8a9133db8d9f3e29968c", "text": "Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eb6ef26bf9e3c3a0e4624533909e52f", "text": "The daily Volume is usually compared to the average daily volume over the past 50 days for a stock. High volume is usually considered to be 2 or more times the average daily volume over the last 50 days for that stock, however some traders might set the crireia to be 3x or 4x the ADV for confirmation of a particular pattern or event. The volume is compared to the ADV of the stock itself, as comparing it to the volume of other stocks would be like comparing apples with oranges, as difference companies would have different number of total stocks available, different levels of liquidity and different levels of volatility, which can all contribute to the volumes traded each day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e3377e90870b6ca11d03652a76dc116", "text": "Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend. However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5671482527712efcef940b6b31d2b8fb", "text": "I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions. When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be31f2302c1db1590563be8a8793d7a", "text": "\"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to. Basically what \"\"HFTs\"\" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else. Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor. So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices. Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq. So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7. Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an \"\"evil HFT\"\" instead of a \"\"trustworthy bank.\"\" But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb374a446483091c25dabadb56b95844", "text": "First, If you buy $10K of a penny stock and try to sell it that afternoon, you probably won't get your money back. The bid/ask spread may cost you dearly. On the shady side, if you are able to afford to trade enough shares to attract attention, the interest of those who believe the volume is an indication of some real event happening, you may pump it high enough to make some nice money, selling into the ensuing rise. This is a classic pump and dump (which often but not always, includes posts on message boards) and it is illegal. The same way this volume attracts traders, it can also attract the attention of the SEC. This should be read as a narrative, not as advice. If anything, it's advice on what not to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50451e2cbef427cc3c98fa671d73052a", "text": "> Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion - http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c82877a4d1d2abf54cc72ef42d48358", "text": "Although I have tried to read as much as I can about whether HFT is good or bad for the market, I am not an expert and I am not very confident in my own opinion. Nevertheless, here's my take: Let's say a pension plan buys a huge block of stock all at once and the market price moves against it. That's what is supposed to happen, and has always happened. HFT are able to offer tight spreads largely because they get picked off less then the market makers in earlier eras. I don't see that as HFT exploiting pension plans, I see it as them preventing themselves from being exploited. I will acknowledge that some HFT shops have been caught doing actual market manipulation, but I believe that the vast majority of what they do is provide market making for cheaper than its ever been. FWIW the SEC [mostly agrees](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-05/sec-will-keep-thinking-about-high-frequency-trading) with me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a0db602af711368a0219b1c7845726c", "text": "\"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an \"\"historic\"\" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adebc6f97829d7aef018c0582f2976c3", "text": "ode2k noted the liquidity can very wildly especially 9 months out and there will be little volume even in the largest stocks. Victor noted standard measures of liquidity don't always apply cleanly to options as they are priced using a hybrid of model and market inputs. So your question is generally very hard to answer on SE, but you can get an answer yourself without too much trouble. The best way to get a feel for slippage in your case is to just get quotes. Most systems should let you get a quote for both buying and selling options at the same time. This will give you a feeling for how much you are paying in spread. Do the same for near dated options to get a feeling for spread size when you end up selling. You should factor in some widening of spreads at bad times, but this should get you a feeling for the scale of the slippage problem.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
779adeb99e292add36d2e23bfa2dfdd0	Can unclear or deceptive company news and updates affect the stock price in the opposite direction of where the company is actually headed?	[ { "docid": "5c58577f473a1dd7cc724c15df133583", "text": "Yes, but only in a relatively short term. False news or speculations can definitely change the stock price, sometimes even significantly. However, the stock price will eventually (in the long-term) correct itself and head to the right direction.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cf0bf726bbe3d3a48911b95404e36591", "text": "You're right, things can get a little out of hand on Reddit. The prior post is gone now so I can't really remember, but the gist of what I meant earlier was that your logic didn't line up in that the price of a stock is indicative of it's value, but doesn't equate to it's value. The price is a combination of the perceived intrinsic valuation of the company as well as sentiment. The price can go up if people are buying but it doesn't necessarily mean the company's value or financial conditions are improving (though it can). It's a common trap to fall into, and can lead one to ignore for example revenues falling or other metrics deteriorating merely because the stock price continues up so it must be getting better and better. Sorry, not a very coherent response, if you're unsure feel free to pm me", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cdb052cdd6f5266eacb059a5461687c", "text": "Good points. It's not a completely new shift, as some equities are behaving as one would historically expect: $LMT just missed earnings and investors are responding appropriately. So while overall things seem somewhat strange, there are still classic signs of behavior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c0f4d3144474b9d0a1a7381620979cc", "text": "It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "585b766e40ed365454c58e2a2f88b19e", "text": "This was not the point of confusion. I said that the dy increased and that this means the investment is performing fairly well being that we don't know the stage the company is in or anything about the health of the economy. He said with the given information the investment is performing poorly. This is where we disagreed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f66ae91750684fb0c60a2d4db4cbfe4", "text": "1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail. 2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields Thanks!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86b35b25f883dbda4f6626fba74a404f", "text": "Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8d94c657d16106d3755564d7398b58", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4", "text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9c2c0c7b002d89409c6869f93afb653", "text": "\"It's called \"\"dilution\"\". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6438aff03037653c65cb500fab84db1c", "text": "There is a technique called the Elliott wave which explains these 'shocks'. The reversal directions you are questioning are part of the pattern, it is known as corrections. The Elliott wave is an indicator based on psychology of investors. Think about it this way, if you see a huge up trend what are you most likely to do, sell and make profit or continue, this is why there is a shock before it continues. Many people will sell to be safe, especially after hearing the bad news they won't risk it. By learning the Elliott wave you'll be able to make an educated decision on whether or not to stay or leave. Here are websites on the Elliott wave: http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:market_analysis:elliott_wave_theory http://www.swing-trade-stocks.com/elliott-wave.html The Elliott wave is helpful in any time frame and works well with momentum. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ded64cf4071846fc1a184032030f7933", "text": "Despite the fact that I think there is a litany of inaccuracies and misunderstandings related to quoted price and transaction price and the way prices move and assets transact; if you were able to, under these extremely narrow and very unlikely conditions, affect the prices of these assets that would be market manipulation in the eyes of the SEC. Link to the SEC page about market manipulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89cf25648c78c059f612da6c62af257", "text": "Simple, there is no magic price adjustment after sales - why do you expect the stock price to change? The listed price of a stock is what someone was willing to pay for it in the last deal that was concluded. If any amount of stock changes ownership, this might have the effect that other people are willing to buy it for a higher price - or not. It is solely in the next buyer's decision what he is willing to pay. Example: if you think Apple stocks are worth 500$ a piece, and I buy a million of them, you might still think they are worth 500$. Or you might see this as a reason that they are worth 505$ now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f", "text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd59a0d6be04b9e7ff8cc04436d98108", "text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd6d21819d04068e9eea9dada5e04ac5", "text": "The opening price is derived from new information received. It reflects the current state of the market. Opening Price Deviation (from Investopedia): Investor expectation can be changed by corporate announcements or other events that make the news. Corporations typically make news-worthy announcements that may have an effect on the stock price after the market closes. Large-scale natural disasters or man-made disasters such as wars or terrorist attacks that take place in the afterhours may have similar effects on stock prices. When this happens, some investors may attempt to either buy or sell securities during the afterhours. Not all orders are executed during after-hours trading. The lack of liquidity and the resulting wide spreads make market orders unattractive to traders in after-hours trading. This results in a large amount of limit or stop orders being placed at a price that is different from the prior day’s closing price. Consequently, when the market opens the next day, a substantial disparity in supply and demand causes the open to veer away from the prior day’s close in the direction that corresponds to the effect of the announcement, news or event.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d599bd9ad32508d1318be684fbf83f72	How it actually works? Selling a call on a stock I hold, but has done poor, might the market thinks may rise	[ { "docid": "14753e2b137ade5d841ba1be57d90ce8", "text": "\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0521aa7602cc269cce3c8176faceb523", "text": "\"What you are proposing is called a \"\"covered call\"\" strategy. It is a perfectly reasonable speculative play on how far the stock will move within a certain amount of time. If your belief that the stock's volatility is such that it is unlikely to reach the strike price before the maturity is greater than the markets (which it seems it is), then go ahead and sell the call.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3e6d4ac77831963abd6658de914ac4f9", "text": "The Explanation is correct. The Traders buys the 1st call and profits linearly form 40$ onwards. At at 45 the short call kick in and neutralizes any further profit on the first call.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871c0b42163b3996693d7c52f41c92e8", "text": "You own the stock at $29.42 At $40, the stocks is called at $26. You can't add the call premium, as it's already accounted for. The trade is biased towards being bearish on the stock. (I edited and added the graph the evening I answered) Not the pretiest graph, but you get the idea. With that $29.42 cost, you are in the money till about $30, then go negative until the most you lose is $3.42.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aed50438b0be52b9a0a266e82bb726e", "text": "people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth. As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ca4ceb8537d75d6b09d221943b50d5", "text": "If you are the only one who puts in a large market buy order, then it would definitely push the price up. How much up would depend on how many would be willing to sell at what price point. It would also be possible that your trade will not get executed as there are no sellers. The same would be true if you put in a large sell order, with no buyers. The price would go down or trade not get executed as there aren't enough buyers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb76265c128c9637b1abd885171a05d", "text": "Think of it this way: 1) You buy 1k in call options that will let you buy 100k of stock when they expire in the money in a year. 2) You take the 99k you would have spent on the stock and invest it in a risk free savings account. 3) Assume the person who sold you the call, immediately hedges the position by buying 100k of stock to deliver when the options expire. The amount of money you could make on risk free interest needs to be comparable to the premium you paid the option writer for tying up their capital, or they wouldn't have made the trade. So higher risk free rates would mean a higher call price. NOTE: The numbers are not equal because of the risk in writing the option, but they will move the same direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b0353eb5873769de175d7620734fdfe", "text": "A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8ae56207c7b41a3488d268e08cb8ae3", "text": "They can sell a lower price call if they expect the stock to plummet in the near term but they are bullish on the longer term. What they are looking to do is collect the call premium and hope it expires worthless. And then again 'hope' that the stock will ultimately turn around. So yes, a lot of hoping. But can you explain what you mean by 'my brokerage gives premiums for prices lower than the current price'? Do you mean you pay less in commissions for ITM calls?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aa3f904bf8a057a8e5e4f1f7d9de354", "text": "There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6c84dae2c72c8e611b59745340c5404", "text": "Yeah, so people would buy it high. I'm short SNAP. I said it so suckers would buy. And then my options would be worth more when earnings come and they tank. The first tank came at earning just a week ago. Next earning it will tank more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4046514c9c1f46c97d5cbb109400ba6e", "text": "It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc5462eef070960fcb1cc25bb5b69405", "text": "Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18fffb30cf851552aecb3366f6b51409", "text": "By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1248a3abfba9745922e9e97dc76f27ee", "text": "Today SPY (The S&P ETF) trades at $128. The option to buy at $140 (this is a Jan '13 call) trades for $5. I buy the call, for $500 as they trade in 100 lots. The S&P skyrockets to 1500 and SPY to $150. The call trades for $11, as it still has a month or two before expiring, so I sell it, and get $1100. The S&P rose 17%, but I doubled my money. If it 'only' rose 9%, to less than $140, I'd lose my investment. No, I don't need to buy the SPY I can sell the call any time before expiration. In fact, most options are not exercised, they are sold between purchase and expiration date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "577d17a91d08a46f7c4dc389251b2675", "text": "This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
84e56fb9dff006d0fd94419de072601a	Should I sell my stocks when the stock hits a 52-week high in order to “Buy Low, Sell High”?	[ { "docid": "f4e45e12a95727c57c7caf4417b24c1e", "text": "\"Though it seems unintuitive, you should rationally ignore the past performance of this stock (including the fact that it's at its 52-week high) and focus exclusively on factors that you believe should affect it moving forward. If you think it's going to go up even further, more than the return on your other options for where to put the money, keep the stock. If you think it's peaked and will be going down, now's a good time to sell. To put it another way: if you didn't already have this stock, would you buy it today? Your choice is just about the same: you can choose between a sum of cash equal to the present market value of the shares, OR the shares. Which do you think is worth more? You also mentioned that you only have 10 stocks in the portfolio. Some are probably a larger percentage than others, and this distribution may be different than what you want in your portfolio. It may be time to do some rebalancing, which could involve selling some shares where your position is too large (as a % of your portfolio) and using the proceeds toward one or more categories you're not as invested in as you would like to be. This might be a good opportunity to increase the diversity in your portfolio. If part of your reward and motivation for trading is emotional, not purely financial, you could sell now, mark it as a \"\"win,\"\" and move on to another opportunity. Trading based on emotions is not likely to optimize your future balance, but not everybody is into trading or money for money's sake. What's going to help you sleep better at night and help boost your quality of life? If holding the stock will make you stress and regret a missed opportunity if it goes down, and selling it will make you feel happy and confident even if it still goes up more (e.g. you interpret that as further confirming that you made a good pick in the first place), you might decide that the risk of suboptimal financial returns (from emotion-based trading) is acceptable. As CQM points out, you could also set a trailing sell order to activate only when the stock is a certain percentage or dollar amount below whatever it peaks at between the time you set the order and the time it fires/expires; the activation price will rise with the stock and hold as it falls.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab781496800a13ed176c6fd1c5a90fde", "text": "\"I bought 1000 shares of Apple, when it was $5. And yet, while the purchase was smart, the sales were the dumbest of my life. \"\"You can't go wrong taking a profit\"\" \"\"When a stock doubles sell half and let it ride\"\", etc. It doubled, I sold half, a $5000 gain. Then it split, and kept going up. Long story short, I took gains of just under $50,000 as it rose, and had 100 shares left for the 7 to 1 split. The 700 shares are worth $79,000. But, if I simply let it ride, 1000 shares split to 14,000. $1.4M. I suppose turning $5,000 into $130K is cause for celebration, but it will stay with me as the lost $1.3M opportunity. Look at the chart and tell me the value of selling stocks at their 52 week high. Yet, if you chart stocks heading into the dotcom bubble, you'll see a history of $100 stocks crashing to single digits. But none of them sported a P/E of 12.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b35c5e8c84e7c3a09681cbaa08b71d2", "text": "Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2bdd2296da8aaa634b7848286231084", "text": "\"Obviously a stock that's hit a high is profit waiting to be taken, be safe, take the money, Sell Sell Sell!! Ah.. but wait, they say \"\"run your winners, cut your losers\"\", so here this stock is a winner... keep on to it, Hold Hold Hold!!!!! Of course, if you're holding, then you think it's going to return even higher.... Buy Buy Buy!!!! So, hope that's clears things up for you - Sell, Hold, or maybe Buy :-) A more serious answer is not ever to worry about past performance, if its gone past a reasonable valuation then consider selling, but never care about selling out just because its reached some arbitrary share price. If you are worried about losses, you might like to set a trailing stop and sell if it drops, but if you're a LTBH type person, just keep it until you feel it is overvalued compared to its fundamentals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47693cc23fde88c8eed203721d2aebe5", "text": "\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1198ec28d8132f8cf6ceaf6d1d56f006", "text": "You should sell all your stock immediately and reinvest the money in index funds. As of right now you're competing against prop trading shops, multinational banks, and the like, who probably know a teensy bit more about that particular stock than you do. I'm sorry, any other advice is missing the point that you shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "558b61ae46d4f61f34860718db23d1dc", "text": "Here in Australia a stock price is usually highest just before a dividend and lowest just after a dividend. If you buy just after the dividend then you missed out until next time. There may be many other reasons why a stock may exhibit yearly, quarterly and monthly cycles.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06ede82fcda97e4b0564b4b59c218a8", "text": "\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dbbf05d698cf95766eb371d5b9bdc04", "text": "\"Insofar as a 52 week high indicates a peak, yes. However, the truth is that \"\"buying low and selling high\"\" means \"\"Act a Fool!\"\" You see, when you buy low, you are perceived to be buying total garbage - throwing your money away and conversely when selling high you are perceived to be a total idiot - selling a winner. That's how people will see you when you are in fact buying low and/or selling high, right? It's those people that (mis)value the asset, right? An asset is worth what the people will pay for it, right? ...And don't forget that holding a loser is MUCH easier than holding a winner. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df7987557ab5a154c6eb615a64a24b6d", "text": "\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \"\"quadrupled\"\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80b22fb150fa636b37258d6d2328e0a7", "text": "One possibility is to lock in gains by selling, where a selling price can attempt to be optimized by initiating a trailing stop loss order. You'll have to look at the pros and cons of that kind of order to see if it is right for you. Another possibility is to begin hedging with options contracts, if that security is optionable. Puts with the appropriate delta will cost over time against future gains in the stock's price, but will protect your wealth if the stock price falls from this high point. These possibilities depend on what your investment goals are. For instance, if you are buying no matter what price because you like the forward guidance of the company, then it changes your capital growth and preservation decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10b1ce0a18ebfa31a2cf2e15e955ddaf", "text": "As per the chart pattern when ever a stock breaks its 52 week high. This information may differ for penny stocks,small caps and mid cap stocks", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e092302dd8cf4668a45069337067daae", "text": "Buy low, sell high - the problem, of course, finding a crystal ball that will tell you when the highs and lows are going to happen :-) You could, for instance, save your money in cash and wait for the occasional sharp drop, but then you've lost profits & dividends from having that cash under the mattress all those years you were waiting. About the closest I've ever gotten to market timing, and I think the closest anyone can get in real life, is that I cut personal spending to the bone from 2008 to 2011, and invested every spare cent. But such opportunities only come along a few times in a lifetime. The other thing is to avoid what a lot of people do, which you might call anti-timing. When the market is high, they jump on the bandwagon, then when it drops they panic-sell, and lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76b00f77433b0df7da99300876af2472", "text": "Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8087b7aad543cf60eb8dd55cccbdd07b", "text": "There is an approach which suggests that each weekend you should review your positions as if they were stocks to be considered for purchase on Monday. I can't offer advice on picking stocks, but it's fair to say that you need to determine if the criteria you used to buy it the first time is still valid. I own a stock trading at over $300, purchased for $5. Its P/E is still reasonable as the darn E just keeps rising. Unless your criteria is to simply grab small gains, which in my opinion is a losing strategy, an 8% move up would never be a reason to sell, in and of itself. Doing so strikes me as day trading, which I advise againgst.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "116c584e7e9849b25089edfb7efa448f", "text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9aa4ec6f87b8f797f24108808a2ab3b", "text": "What you are suggesting would be the correct strategy, if you knew exactly when the market was going to go back up. This is called market timing. Since it has been shown that no one can do this consistently, the best strategy is to just keep your money where it is. The market tends to make large jumps, especially lately. Missing just a few of these in a year can greatly impact your returns. It doesn't really matter what the market does while you hold investments. The important part is how much you bought for and how much you sold for. This assumes that the reasons that you selected those particular investments are still valid. If this is not the case, by all means sell them and pick something that does meet your needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceb81a043af8bf59ab9c339d99423dfd", "text": "Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down? Just my 2 cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fab5eb5d350aa52c14d77e8e9a02afac", "text": "If you feel comfortable taking an 8% gain on your stocks, then yes, you should sell. It is generally a good idea to know when you want to sell (either a price or %) before you ever actually buy the stocks. That helps from getting emotional and making poor decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9605b4ae543c68f5c3a18c11da6bbdd2", "text": "The time when you might want to do this is if you think BBY is undervalued already. If you'd be happy buying the stock now, you'd be happy buying it lower (at the strike price of the put option you sold). If the stock doesn't go down, you win. If it does, you still win, because you get the stock at the strike price. If I recall correctly Warren Buffett did this with Coca-Cola. But that's Warren Buffett.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "566c46d1e90f3c2b4f6b483efe05b910", "text": "If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16", "text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a7804bb59b40d13a2aad5382f5c06dd", "text": "Never. Isn't that the whole idea of the limit order. You want a bargain, not the price the seller wants. And when the market opens it is volatile at the most, just an observation mayn't be correct. Let it stabilize a bit. The other thing is you might miss the opportunity. But as an investor you should stick to your guns and say I wouldn't buy any higher than this or sell any lower than this. As you are going long, buying at the right price is essential. You aren't going to run away tomorrow, so be smart. Probably this is what Warren Buffet said, it is important to buy a good stock at the right price rather than buying a good stock at the wrong price. There is no fixed answer to your question. It can be anything. You can check what analysts, someone with reputation of predicting correctly(not always), say would be the increase/decrease in the price of a stock in the projected future. They do quite a lot of data crunching to reach a price. Don't take their values as sacrosanct but collate from a number of sources and take an average or some sorts of it. You can then take an educated guess of how much you would be willing to pay depending the gain or loss predicted. Else if you don't believe the analysts(almost all don't have a stellar reputation) you can do all the data crunching yourself if you have the time and right tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcadeea3c20862c49481272928faa326", "text": "\"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dc72381612728883984b05dc207493a", "text": "\"Eventually, you'll end up buying a stock at or near a high-water mark. You might end up waiting a few years before you see your \"\"guaranteed\"\" $100 profit, and you now have $5K to $10K tied up in the wait. The more frequently you trade, the faster your money gets trapped. There are two ways to avoid this problem: 1) Do it during strong bull markets. If everything keeps going up you don't need to worry about peaks...but then why would you keep cashing out for $1 gains? 2) Accurately predict the peaks. If you can see the future, why would you keep cashing out for $1 gains? Either way, this strategy will only make your broker happy, $8 at a time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b60b4dc09e62f541f1c4c482a5ba87b5", "text": "You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e604008e0fef242d90c196819044e530", "text": "Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
66e47c7d7b2bcc369eb99885c23c2157	How do I interpret this analysis from Second Opinion?	[ { "docid": "d524fb1f021f6300265329ed8a3a182b", "text": "\"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say \"\"Do not initiate new position.\"\" This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it. Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very \"\"who knows what it will do\"\" neutral position (IMO).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c361e9da14568aec1a3e3689accb4403", "text": "\"This is analyst speak for \"\"the stock isn't going anywhere anytime soon\"\". Remember these guys are offering advice to the entire universe in a few lines, so the advice gets fortune cookie-like. When I look at these things, I care more about when the analyst changes their opinion more than what the opinion is. If you really trust this person, you should listen to the earnings call for the stock (or read the transcript) and listen for the questions asked by the analyst. Usually you'll be able to understand why the analyst feels the way he does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0882afa2daa5a742a7c8776b1dfbe50", "text": "No, you shouldn't buy it. The advice here is to keep any existing holdings but not make new purchases of the stock.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0a4079725f2d6fbf8f1f84c9048db43f", "text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58f6bb045444db95b8688c58cdade806", "text": "The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bb3af5a8fa64af758bd62a10abb09a3", "text": "It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed7ca9deefef1f1c03f543bd99562a62", "text": "I, too, was not a fan of ARCH or some of the other statistical items. I went through to memorize some of the method names like Durbin-Watson and knew what they corrected or what they used for. I think I had 3 of them. That was the extent of my studying for that section.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053c029e380efa2f5a78a846f8db658b", "text": "A complete analysis of your current situation, goals, and formulating a plan to meet those goals, including discussing your risk tolerance cannot be completed during the initial meeting. The first meeting should be him trying to convince you of his skills and services, he will also be collecting the required data from you. You could inquire a few days before the meeting what information he needs from you. The less he asks for the less though the analysis at the initial meeting. This would also be a good time to ask about fee structure. Some planners make money on the initial plan, others make money on the execution of the plan. What fee that is expected for the initial analysis can vary greatly. You should ask, but most will consider this first meeting as the cost of doing business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "536ea8d6b0e4f7dd151fac547fee08e0", "text": "TL;DR for those who don't want to waste their time: Uber didn't do anything special. Also, you should follow unethical laws and not try to change or challenge the system. While I was reading the piece I thought it was the work of a sophomore, but it turns out this was written by a professor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5235552354f12d97875dc24fc02adc7", "text": "\"I think... the topic of the essay states: \"\"Provide a thorough discussion if the meaning and interpretation of the four descriptive statistical measures required in your analysis: Arirthmetic mean, Variance, Standard Deviation, and coefficeint of variation. for example, how are these measures related to each other?\"\" I have no idea what I'm doing. I'll buy you reddit gold for a year if you help me out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83cdc3f29e96ce627f0bb5369a48319f", "text": "I don't think you can always assume a 12-month time horizon. Sometimes, the analyst's comments might provide some color on what kind of a time horizon they're thinking of, but it might be quite vague.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db3816bf403891ee9fd6cf579b261951", "text": "What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative. What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e", "text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eeba72256657916fd5a9d0e79bb538e", "text": "\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78f8c5b0ba6f64d5a355ae15e57d9948", "text": "Based upon what little is publicly known at this time, it doesn't look good for CAT, PWC or outside counsel. The economic substance they offered up sounds like post hoc reasoning. The tax court buying their current explanations would have to accept some exceptionally astute, long-range planning took place that accepted the initial costs exceeding the nascent parts revenue, as well as the risks of over-optimizing tax operations if the necessary revenue didn't materialize; and it doesn't seem they are yet offering any evidence to show that kind of foresight. It will be fascinating to follow, for sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59cb676ec46659f7d6900da326c3c8dd", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7f42649f3f23fb3fac410b56aced21", "text": "\"This company was a reputable rating agency for many years. See Weiss Research website, ratings section for a very different perspective on Martin Weiss's work than the websites with which he is now associated. I checked both links provided, and agree with the questioner in every way: These appear to be highly questionable investment research websites. I use such strong terms based on the fact that the website actually uses the distasteful pop-up ploy, \"\"Are you SURE you want to leave this site?\"\" Clearly, something changed between what Weiss Ratings was in the past (per company history since 1971) and what Martin Weiss is doing now. Larry Edelson seems to have been associated exclusively with questionable websites and high pressure investment advice since 2007. From 1996 through the present, he worked as either an employee or contractor of Weiss Research. Let's answer each of your questions. On June 22, 2006, the Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Weiss Research, Inc., Martin Weiss, and Lawrence Edelson (collectively, “Respondents”) for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in connection with their operation of an unregistered investment adviser and the production and distribution of materially false and misleading marketing materials. Full details about Weiss Ratings operations, including its history from 1996 through 2001, when it operated in compliance with securities laws, then from 2001 through 2005, which was when the SEC filed charges for regulatory violations, are available from the June 2006 U.S. SEC court documents PDF. Finally, this quantitative assessment, \"\"Safe With Martin Weiss? (December 2010) by CXO Advisory (providers of \"\"objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions\"\") for its readers concluded the following: In summary, the performance of Martin Weiss’ premium services in aggregate over the past year is unimpressive. The study methodology was good, but I recommend reading the article (I posted the URL) to fully understand what caveats and assumptions were done to reach that conclusion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d645474ac00c78d873433883152b8a04", "text": "I'm not sure that you're considering all the options. So you may not subtract $X from B, but you do compare NPV(B) to $Y. Also, remember that we're not trying to figure out the return on B. We're trying to figure out what to do next. In terms of planning, the sunk cost is irrelevant. But in terms of calculating return, A was a turkey. And to calculate the return, we would include $X in our costs for B. And for the second option, we'd subtract $X from $Y (may be negative). Sunk costs are irrelevant to planning, but they are very relevant to retrospective analysis. Please don't confuse the two. When looking back, part of the cost for B will be that $X. But in the middle, after paying $X and before starting B, the $X is gone. You only have the building and have to make your decision based on the options you have at that moment. You will sometimes hear $Y called the opportunity cost of B. You could sell out for $Y or you could do B. You should only do B if it is worth more than $Y. The sunk cost fallacy would be comparing B to $X. Assuming $Y is less than $X, this would make you not do B when it is your best path forward from that moment. I.e. $Y < NPV(B) < $X means that you should do the project. You will lose money (apparently that's a foregone conclusion), but you will lose less money than if you just sold out. You should also do B if $Y < $X < NPV(B) or $X < $Y < NPV(B). In general, you should do B any time $Y < NPV(B). The only time you should not do B is if NPV(B) < $Y. If they are exactly equal, then it doesn't matter financially whether you do B or not.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3e43e242d8d747b9f0ce8494b02b0f4c	What is a 10 Year Treasury Note and How Can it be Used to Calculate the Intrinsic Value of a Stock?	[ { "docid": "1b69527e2707e44cc701c57fc239b10a", "text": "\"It's a form of debt issued by the United States Treasury. As the name implies, a 10-year note is held for 10 years (after which you get the face value in cash), and it pays interest twice per year. It's being used in the calculator to stand for a readily available, medium-term, nearly risk-free investment, as a means of \"\"discounting\"\" the value that the company gains. The explanation for why the discounting is done can be found on the page you linked. As a Canadian you could use the yield of comparable Canadian treasury securities as quoted by Bank of Canada (which seem to have had the bottom fall out since the new year), although I don't suppose American notes would be hard for a Canadian investor to come by, so if you wanted to be conservative you could use the US figure as long as it's higher.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4aca16b8c90d88a5a94d287aa50dfd6f", "text": "On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d16faa39889d7deb9d94d194aa8873", "text": "It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505", "text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d59784bb0ebcbdcc971ee9068ec0039", "text": "\"This BBC article says that nuclear power notes came about when the French energy company EDF purchased British Energy in 2008: The note changes in value with wholesale energy prices and power output levels from British Energy's existing nuclear stations. EDF Energy's website describes these notes under the section titled \"\"Nuclear Power Notes\"\": When EDF acquired British Energy in January 2009, Nuclear Power Notes were issued to British Energy shareholders who chose to take them in lieu of 74 pence of cash per British Energy share held. The Nuclear Power Notes are ten year financial instruments (2009 – 2019) which give ex British Energy shareholders a continuing interest in the “EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Fleet”. They are traded on the ICAP Securities & Derivatives Exchange (formerly known as the PLUS Quoted exchange). Each year a pre-defined calculation is performed to determine whether any cash will be paid to Nuclear Power Note holders. The calculation is dependent on the nuclear output of the EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Fleet (“Eligible Nuclear Output”) and market power prices (“Power Prices”). This calculation may or may not result in a cash payment each year to Nuclear Power Note holders. The MWh/TWh are figures you see are measures of watt-hours, i.e. energy output. The value of nuclear power notes is tied to this output. Looking at the most recent statement (June 2013), you can see a line that looks like this: Month Ahead Price in respect of July 2013: 47.46 GBP/MWh which is an energy spot price for the output of the nuclear plants. I'm not entirely sure of the relationship between this and the payment to shareholders, but if you look at the 2012 Yearly Payment Calculation Notice on the same page, you'll see this in the first section: (a) the Yearly Payment for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, (the Relevant Year ) payable in respect of each CVR on 31 January 2013 shall be zero; The payments were also zero for 2010 and 2011. The 2009 calculation notice, however, states that (a) the Yearly Payment for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009, (the Relevant Year) payable in respect of each CVR on 31 January 2010 shall be 11.497164 pence stated to 6 decimal places I presume that payment would have appeared in whatever account holds these notes, e.g. your brokerage account. Technically, the financial statements above refer to a Contingent Value Rights (CVR) instrument, which is a derivative linked to the Nuclear Power Notes. This site sums it up better than I can: The British Energy CVRs were created by the issue of nuclear power notes (NPNs) to the target’s shareholders who opted to take up this alternative. The NPNs were issued by Barclays Bank plc and were linked to guaranteed contingent value rights instruments that were issued to Barclays by EDF’s acquisition vehicle (Lake Acquisitions) and which were ultimately guaranteed by EDF Energy plc (Lake CVRs). Barclays is required to make yearly payments to noteholders for 10 years, the amount of which is limited to the corresponding amount paid by Lake Acquisitions to Barclays for the Lake CVRs. Basically, there is a chain of payments through these derivatives that eventually links back to nuclear energy output.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4156c4a82da8f673123236c67faea15a", "text": "\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \"\"collective\"\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "725951659c06b70d8fe02aca12320d51", "text": "I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4bc1e354155fce7135692aa703dd66", "text": "The first method is the correct one. You bought an asset worth of $1000 and you put it on your depreciation schedule. What it means is that you get to write off the $1000 over a certain period of time (and not at once, as you do with expenses). But the value you're writing off is the $1000 regardless of how much you've written off already. Assume you depreciate in straight line over 5 years (that's how you depreciate computers for Federal tax purposes, most states follow). For the simplicity of the calculation, assume you depreciate each year as a whole year (no mid-year/mid-quarter conventions). The calculation is like this: If you sell the computer - the proceeds above the adjusted basis amount are taxed as depreciation recapture up to the accumulated depreciation amount, and as capital gains above that. So in your case - book value is the adjusted basis at the end of the year (EOY), depreciation this year is the amount you depreciate in the year in question out of the total of the original cost, and the accumulated depreciation is the total depreciation including the current year. In Maryland they do not allow depreciating to $0, but rather down to 25% of the original cost, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you depreciate until your adjusted basis is $250. Depreciation rates are described here (page 5). For computers (except for large mainframes) you get 30% depreciation, with the last year probably a bit less due to the $250 adjusted basis limitation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c90ee4ba274fd55bd125b0bc0623285", "text": "On closer look, it appears that Google Finance relies on the last released 10-k statement (filing date 10/30/2013), but outstanding shares as of last 10-Q statement. Using these forms, you get ($37,037M / 5.989B ) = $6.18 EPS. I think this is good to note, as you can manually calculate a more up to date EPS value than what the majority of investors out there are relying on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee5c8dd03dbbb88e869d9288e03091f7", "text": "\"At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa. From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as \"\"goodwill.\"\") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future. If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90", "text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af07b740b87613ecc580fd8f8e59ced", "text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f057ba558284c21dbce37c95a845abb6", "text": "Sheegan has a great explanation of how the TBA market contributes to mortgage rates. The 30 Year Mortgage rates are closely tied to the 10-Year Treasury. One can track this rate at many stock quoting sites using symbol TNX.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "635b2da07686ff2edc334ce3019a7d44", "text": "\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
858010b6d4e046b51124ecbe5e75f2eb	Who owns NASDAQ? Does it collect fees from stock transactions?	[ { "docid": "e91568442c62ae8fd211508590dd3e9d", "text": "\"NASDAQ OMX Group owns NASDAQ, a stock exchange. It is a corporation, and is listed on the NASDAQ as NDAQ. It makes money by: source NASDAQ also charges for market data services, found in the NASDAQ \"\"Datastore\"\". Other information about the fees charged by NYSE and NASDAQ may be found in the Investopedia article The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bd1a333f0d4845d3bfc8aa0017e0da31", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "307fc0322c1cc6b4e936b694408c617b", "text": "Generally Google gets their data, directly from the exchanges (Nasdaq, NYSE). This is really expensive -- tens of thousands of dollars a month just for the license from the exchange, and lots of telecom costs on top of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5efb66c4232a0cacd9b4a78d531db39", "text": "A lot will depend on wether you have in your possession the physical share documents or just numbers in your brokerage portfolio. Electronic shares are not traceable as they do not exist as individual entities. ETrade certainly knows who bought how much, but no concept of which ones. Lets say ET buys 1000 shares of Acme, their database looks like this: Now they sell 400 shares to Bob: Bob sells 200, Alice buys 100: ( skipped one transaction for brevity ) Did Alice get 100 shares out of ET's original 1000, or did she get 100 shares that were previously owned by Bob? Or 27 from ET and 73 from ET? Another, less exact way to picture the process is one share is 1ml of liquid. If you return 50ml to the pot it becomes indistinguishable from the rest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1fdcd7e54bb83602f5e55c5b27dc940", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7607550c53d612d4bad86d32e3f34cd3", "text": "This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bda4b8daa6d99a032c8104e13cf6189", "text": "\"Is NASDAQ's CTO the same guy that put the login credentials needed to completely WIPE the production facility of a company in the \"\"new workers manual\"\"? (something that was rather popular on reddit recently). I really hope the SEC looks into this...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28c28ea3946f1c2d86b340183c8db50f", "text": "No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96", "text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e8790f3d77d44502c61766e237945b", "text": "(yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading. I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol). I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that). I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe94b7253c0a5ea576467306a3beadef", "text": "NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b25f5bafb3d66343aac4841d554e5e52", "text": "The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e02071ab89a6dee5f340df41096bdd12", "text": "Say a stock is listed in Nasdaq, and the same company has a stock listed in Tsx. Does the Nasdaq price affect the Tsx price as trading commences? Not directly. Basically, an exchange is a market, and the price is defined only by supply and demand in that market. However, any substantial price differential for a commodity traded in multiple market creates an arbitrage opportunity, and there are many traders whose job it is exactly to find and use such opportunities. Their activity in turn has the effect of reducing the price differentials to the point where transaction costs make them unprofitable. With high-frequency traders around, the time for a price differential to disappear is nowadays measured in milliseconds. If a trader buys from one exchange, will it affect the price of the other? Only through the mechanism mentioned above. Are there any benefits to being listed in two exchanges? It increases the liquidity of a stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98634ad20792e08f87659493195a9884", "text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77986266e05864064b966505301f2aae", "text": "I agree. Small investors got screwed worse with manually traded shares. Electronic trading was a big part of why fees for trades have come down so much over the years. HFT acts as a tax on small traders, but it is fairly insignificant. This isn't to say that HFT isn't a problem. Systems that cause flash crashes with no one understanding why, isn't good for the market. A small fee is a small change that could provide a solution to the problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a123a5257336278656f89e22c3cdeb3", "text": "\"I don't understand what the D, to the right of APPLE INC, means. This means the graph below is for the \"\"D\"\". There is selection at top and you can change this to Minutes [5,20,60,etc], Day, Week [W], Month [M] I'm not understanding how it can say BATS when in actuality AAPL is listed on the NASDAQ. Do all exchanges have info on every stock even from other exchanges and just give them to end-users at a delayed rate? BATS is an exchange. A stock can be listed on multiple exchange. I am not sure if AAPL is also listed on BATS. However looks like BATS has agreement with major stock exchanges to trade their data and supplies this to trading.com\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3729a404a1c7ee7a89bada01fa909e33	How will my stock purchase affect my taxes?	[ { "docid": "8e9e81e12f5d38b6cadc8de5e386cc2d", "text": "Assuming you are in the US, and are an average joe, the answer to your question is no. Investment costs do not reduce your taxable income for the year you make the investment. They do factor in to the cost basis of your investment and so will affect your taxes in the year you sell the investment. If you want to reduce your taxable income, you could contribute the $5000 to a traditional ira, or 401k, assuming you qualify. Depending on where the account is held, you may then be able to use that $5k to purchase stock in the company you are interested in. The stock would be held in your IRA or 401k account, and would be subject to more restrictions than a normal brokerage account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87b1311ea060117cc2ce42d5a0981452", "text": "Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0bfbb3a0f9d2ac58c9bb99f9390209f7", "text": "\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ece78c28fdb7a538c04e1f1c16ad73a3", "text": "No, you're not missing anything. RSUs are pretty simple when it comes to taxes. They are taxed as compensation at fair market value when they vest, basically equivalent to the company giving you a cash bonus and then using it to buy company stock. The fair market value at vesting then becomes your cost basis. Assuming the value has increased since vesting, selling the shares that vested at least a year ago (to qualify for lower long-term capital gains tax rates) with the highest cost basis with result in the minimum taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "875dad8f95dc8fdbe28434eb61a793ed", "text": "You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $2075. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($2075). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c12ad1c75d8f5457aea6526a873e167c", "text": "It's not all roses, as I understand it, one effect of a tax inversion move is that existing stockholders will get hit with capital gains tax on the stock they hold as part of the conversion process. Edit: going a bit further, often officers of the corporation are insulated from this tax as they have agreements that the company will pay their tax in the event of such a conversion. Seems like a potential for conflict of interest of officers vs shareholders to me. It's unknown if this is the case with BK execs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "622d9efc9997fa5f88883a7f7a3621cc", "text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93b6457e8a48c4363e86f317dbc0934e", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab4e8f980720ba23c8a6f3b80ca1a3cf", "text": "Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af2c7f5fd12ca83d7807555f97965571", "text": "Assuming US. The only con that I know of is that hassle factor. You have to remember to sell when you get the new shares, and your taxes become a bit more complicated; the discount that you receive is taxed as ordinary income, and then any change in the price of the stock between when you receive it and you sell it will be considered a capital gain or loss. It's not hard to account for properly if you keep good records.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2eece10018e187b5456011337e0d74c9", "text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1797c0491a4af3e6fa3e28b50e09be2", "text": "The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ed3c177786d18301727f0854afccc2d", "text": "\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cd255593318509c2eba3620efead98a", "text": "You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d7e73075bf69bbbe5adeff90c043137", "text": "You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fa3e4c93672a2ca25f75d6d1d809c08", "text": "\"This stock is the same as any other, but you need to keep clear in your head that you and your company are now different entities. You (the person) will pay tax on capital gains and losses when you sell any stock that you hold in your own name. You'll also owe \"\"regular\"\" tax if you draw a salary, etc. The fact that it may be \"\"your\"\" company does not change these things. The company will not recognize a gain by selling stock to raise capital since it's nominally exchanging things of equal value, say $100 in cash for $100 in stock. In order to sell stock, however, you MIGHT need to register with the SEC depending on how you're going about finding your investors, so keep that in mind.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbf1a4e9a95e8154a0e768606992b801", "text": "I gift my daughter stock worth $1000. No tax issue. She sells it for $2000, and has a taxable gain of $1000 that shows up on her return. Yes, you need to find out the date of the gift, as that is the date you value the fund for cost basis. The $3500 isn't a concern, as the gift seems to have been given well before that. It's a long term capital gain when you sell it. And, in a delightfully annoying aspect of our code, the dividends get added to basis each year, as you were paying tax on the dividend whether or not you actually received it. Depending on the level of dividends, your basis may very well be as high as the $6500 current value. (pls ask if anything here needs clarification)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6319a67aa9aee265e1ace0105a619b6e	Shares in stock exchange and dividend payout relationship	[ { "docid": "ebbd3c1b31839b69b58a9fce3bab627a", "text": "It would be 0.22 * Rs 5 per share, i.e. Rs 1.1 per share. For 1000 share it would be Rs 1.1 * 1000, i.e. 1100", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e11a156276e3268bd1b63620fce86a21", "text": "When you sell the stock your income is from the difference of prices between when you bought the stock and when you sold it. There's no interest there. The interest is in two places: the underlying company assets (which you own, whether you want it or not), and in the distribution of the income to the owners (the dividends). You can calculate which portion of the interest income constitutes your dividend by allocating the portions of your dividend in the proportions of the company income. That would (very roughly and unreliably, of course) give you an estimate what portion of your dividend income derives from the interest. Underlying assets include all the profits of the company that haven't been distributed through dividends, but rather reinvested back into the business. These may or may not be reflected in the market price of the company. Bottom line is that there's no direct correlation between the income from the sale of the stake of ownership and the company income from interest, if any correlation at all exists. Why would you care about interest income of Salesforce? Its not a bank or a lender, they may have some interest income, but that's definitely not the main income source of the company. If you want to know how much interest income exactly the company had, you'll have to dig deep inside the quarterly and annual reports, and even then I'm not sure if you'll find it as a separate item for a company that's not in the lending business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34e4ff8c31dc911644bb906c3fa47495", "text": "No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801", "text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767", "text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8298d7869d0f0edb85f3c152d7d4f565", "text": "\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc596ab411b839e7fddc66f3efd63334", "text": "Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "822bb2c67237202f012a871aa9b12118", "text": "\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer \"\"owns\"\" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e", "text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7", "text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757", "text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef79f26ff20897a23ca918338ef24e8b", "text": "\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0635c74f875d15a57b2671500a2f318", "text": "Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter. They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued. This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided. This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae344d7b08ea5be0cb2b7470157192fb", "text": "Regarding: 1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? As dividends distribution dates and amounts are announced in advance, probably the stock price will rise of the same amount of the divident before the day of distribution. If I know that stock share A's value is y and the dividend announced is x, I would be willing to buy shares of A for anything > y and < than x+y before the distribution.So, arbitrageurs probably would take the price to x+y before the dividend distribution, and then after the dividend distribution the price will fall back to y.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
16d24deb366a322fb47cfab342b1596a	Are stock purchases on NASDAQ trackable to personal information?	[ { "docid": "5d3da25089418411eb6408c048816288", "text": "In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "635d09c65f7b5804f9a04305dd0a4fa5", "text": "The broker will probably submit records to the IRS, so there isn't anonymity at that level...", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf75cc35ece65ec6ebd8065d546b909", "text": "This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cf585819f69f8fd9fcd539685c2709b", "text": "\"Are there any known protections against obvious typos in the stock systems themselves? Do you know of stock exchanges which flags or rejects obviously wrong buy or sell orders (e.g., selling something for 0.1% of its highest buy order, or buying something at 1000 times the current sell order)? Does the stock exchange \"\"community\"\" have some sort of \"\"rules of conduct\"\" for this? Yes and No. Most Stock Exchanges for certain set of stocks have circuit breakers that are more to restrict panic selling or artificial drop in prices. The kind of controls you are mentioning can't be put on individual trades; as stock exchanges are meant to guarantee / provide neutral ground for the price to be determined by demand / supply. There are quite a few companies that have quickly lost value and become worthless with a day or two. Hence it becomes difficult to determine if something is error by an individual or not. Once an order is submitted to the exchange, it can't afford the to and fro to verify ... as even few seconds make a different in volatile markets. The kind of errors reported are difficult for an individual to make as he would not own the kind of stocks and the stock broker will stop the trade from being placed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "478de65041087dc44daed1e85da6aa63", "text": "\"One scenario described in the original question -- a non-insider who trades after informal conversations with friends, where no insiders directly benefit from any such disclosure -- might not be illegal. (IANAL -- this is just my personal interpretation of articles in the news recently.) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/insider-trading-cases-imperiled-as-top-u-s-court-spurns-appeal the appeals court said prosecutors needed to show that the person disclosing the information received a clear benefit -- something more than the nurturing of a friendship ... In a 1980 case the Supreme Court rejected the idea of “a general duty between all participants in market transactions to forgo actions based on material, nonpublic information.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "645055275329b090b299348a2493dbdc", "text": "I would at least encrypt the part of the drive you keep forms like that, but not to protect myself from the odd villain who works for the IRS. Your broker does report your capital gains to the IRS, whether in sales or dividends. I received a bill last month from the IRS for dividends I forgot to report on my 2013 return. The bill contained a partial duplicate of my 1099-DIV form from the brokerage, and included account numbers and SSN. Therefore it's safe to say IRS employees don't need to hack your laptop in order to get that info. :) As for minimum information, it depends on your broker. Call them and ask; they'll tell you everything you need to know. Vanguard, for example, has some security questions, among other things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f09a405c8242b6ac42a50f5bbd2bd20", "text": "\"Getting \"\"physical stocks\"\" will in most cases only be for the \"\"fun of it\"\". Most stocks nowadays are registered electronically and thus the physical stock will be of no value - it will just be a certificate saying that you own X amount of shares in company X; but this information is at the same time registered electronically. Stocks are not like bearer bonds, the certificate itself contains no value and is registered to each individual/entity. Because the paper itself is worthless, stealing it will not affect your amount of stock with the company. This is true for most stocks - there may exist companies who live in the 70s and do not keep track of their stock electronically, but I suspect it will only be very few (and most likely very small and illiquid companies).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dd94d11762f4a6bb127f5f9da57cd75", "text": "No, this is not generally possible, as each security purchase is booked as a separate order => hence separate transaction. You can do this through purchasing of a fund, i.e.: purchasing one share of a ETF will get you a relative share of the ETF holdings, but the actual holdings are not up to you then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da5f2a34222c2803b5973c53d2a3b84", "text": "That's up to you. If you instruct your broker to sell shares purchased in specific lots, they can do that -- but doing so requires that you and/or they track specific fractional lots forever afterwards so you know what is still there to be sold. FIFO simplifies the bookkeeping. And I am not convinced selecting specific lots makes much difference; the government gets its share of your profits sooner or later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69c90279a1829fd8ce58e09cb7fd2a79", "text": "No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies. From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold. If you can adequately identify the shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9da008b3808b1c88ffd96a858b5cf775", "text": "\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d55477a28427a28e14b8662c097c8ef", "text": "\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bff3fef09ee5bd2fb14dbdb7c3e95eb9", "text": "To supplement Ben's answer: Following 'smart money' utilizes information available in a transparent marketplace to track the holdings of professionals. One way may be to learn as much as possible about fund directors and monitor the firms holdings closely via prospectus. I believe certain exchanges provide transaction data by brokers, so it may be possible for a well-informed individual to monitor changes in a firms' holdings in between prospectus updates. An example of a play on 'smart money': S&P500 companies are reviewed for weighting and the list changes when companies are dropped or added. As you know there are ETFs and funds that reflect the holdings of the SP500. Changes to the list trigger 'binary events' where funds open or close a position. Some people try to anticipate the movements of the SP500 before 'smart money' adjusts their positions. I have heard some people define smart money as people who get paid whether their decisions are right or wrong, which in my opinion, best captures the term. This Udemy course may be of interest: https://www.udemy.com/tools-for-trading-investing/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a0d333889d17fdcc8812906c972d7c", "text": "Technically yes, but getting investigated also depends on the connection that can be established. If you learned something from information obtained at work or by affiliation (family/friend), you probably can't trade. If you (hypothetically) stumbled across information perhaps by eavesdropping or peeking on some stranger's conversation, it'd be hard to find the connection unless you went and told people how you came about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e1b383fd0db28de0e0948544e307d5f", "text": "Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
91e128d53fb86d76070e32cdd5dba248	Which technical analysis indicators are considered leading stock market indicators?	[ { "docid": "fb58d86e7f47048800fa325beac73e59", "text": "Relative Strength Indicators are also trailing indicators. They are based on the number of recent upticks or downticks in an investment's price. (The size of a tick is quantized, and related to the investment's price.) By the time enough upticks have accumulated to generate a buy signal, the investment has already increased in price significantly. Similarly, by the time enough downticks have accumulated a to generate a sell signal, the investment has already dropped in price significantly. The theory of Relative Strength Indicators is based on the hope that moves found by these indicators are likely to continue after the signal is generated. But even if this is the case, someone who relies on these indicators will miss out on the first part of the move. Dorsey-Wright offers investment research based on the theory of Relative Strength Indicators. They offer investment vehicles based on this research. They also work with local investment advisors to develop custom back-tested strategies. They have published a white-paper, with references to others' research.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1186534fe3cabcce55f68329a7b594c2", "text": "I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "432563b151d2e6afcfa8c7f9f577f54b", "text": "I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bee5a63f15bde0552214d71f7f7654fb", "text": "If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "476c6e3d5d3553451189ad0b3ba2f645", "text": "Well that will depend on the time frame you are looking at it. You can't compare the RSI on a five minute chart to the RSI on a daily chart. The minute chart would represent the momentum of very small trends whilst the daily chart would represent the momentum of much larger trends. On the daily chart the shares might be experiencing a strong uptrend with a rising RSI. During each day the price might move up at the open then come down some, then back up a bit more and repeat this several times during the day before closing higher. During the day the RSI might have moved slightly higher. But during a single day on the 5 minute chart the price may have gone through several up and down trends, with the RSI going into oversold and overbought several times. What you should be looking at to strengthen the signal from the RSI is to watch for when the RSI is in the overbought at the same time the price is reaching a peak, or when the RSI is in the oversold at the same time the price is reaching a trout. These could represent potential turning points in price. The time frame to use would depend on the type of trading you are attempting to undertake. If you prefer day trading (being in and out of a trade in minutes to hours) you might look at time frames of minutes to hours. If you prefer longer term position, trend or swing trading you would probably stick to daily charts. If you prefer longer term active investing you might stick to a combination of daily, weekly and monthly charts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d13f8e4bcea8a0b51ada8d4e37ab1fc", "text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8477563bc35d3c544d79b99077b08ad6", "text": "Technical Analysis assumes that the only relevant number(s) regarding a security is (are) price (and price momentum, price patterns, price harmonics, price trends, price aberrations, etc.). Technical is all based on price. Technical is not based on any of the fundamentals. Technical Analysis is for traders (speculators) not for long term investors. A long term investor is more concerned with the dividend payment history and such similar data as he makes his money from the dividend payments not from the changes in price (because he buys and holds, not buy low sell high).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2011683a7282591b7487b02e7d336fa2", "text": "I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dbac35d169c0bc22c6eedb5fc973372", "text": "\"http://www.attaincapital.com/alternative-investment-education/managed-futures-newsletter/investment-research-analysis/423 http://www.cta-info.com/cta_stats.htm I just googled \"\"managed futures stats\"\". I'm not 100% sure what your goal is, but I wouldn't look to filter out trades. You're better off grading returns and variance within the returns. http://www.autumngold.com/ Poke around the \"\"top traders\"\" section and compare the returns with the drawdown of the traders. You'll see the \"\"lucky\"\" traders, but you'll also see the high risk guys and low risk guys.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0701647bcc7ed2194b069134c6b73b93", "text": "Algorithmic trading essentially banks on the fact that a price will fluctuate in tiny amounts over short periods of time, meaning the volatility is high in that given time frame. As the time frame increases the efficiency of algorithmic trading decreases and proper investment strategies such as due diligence, stock screening, and technical analysis become the more efficient methods. Algorithms become less effective as the time frame increases due to the smoothing effect of volatility over time. Writing an algorithm that could predict future long-term prices would be an impossible feat because as the time frame is scaled up there are far less price fluctuations and trends (volatility smooths out) and so there is little to no benchmark for the formulas. An algorithm simply wouldn't make sense for a long-term position. A computer can't predict, say, the next quarter, an ousted CEO, a buyout, or anything else that could effect the price of the security, never mind the psychology behind it all. Vice versa, researching a company's fundamentals just to bank on a 0.25% daily swing would not be efficient. Tax advantages or not, it is the most efficient methods that are preferred for a given time-scale of trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d1f1268fe00eb1e8f19c139ad9d8d02", "text": "There's a whole industry devoted to this. Professionals use Bloomberg terminals. High Frequency Traders have computers read news feeds for them. Amateurs use trading consoles (like Thinkorswim) to get headlines quickly on stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce676212f9a76f4a1caaaed0e929408", "text": "\"ycharts.com has \"\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\"\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55f332da2bc6737a330b520c90586811", "text": "The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8b8a8cd6dd609be92d7c068483a4d53", "text": "Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8defaaaef4e57a5dca811246a42fc530", "text": "That metric is not very useful for anything other than very extremely long trading periods. Most strategies or concerned with price movement over much shorter time frames, 15 mins, 1 hr, 4 hr, daily, weekly, monthly. The MA or moving average is a trend following lagging indicator used to smooth out price fluctuations and more accurately reflect the price of trading instrument such as a stock (AAPL), commodity, or currency pair. Traders are generally concerned with current market trends and price action of the instrument they are trading. As such, an extremely long MA (average daily price, over a period of 365 days) are generally not that important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "341d6a2a406972d0c1356d6762328b87", "text": "\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3001a3b84a47b794da3986f76284a9f	What should I do with my stock options?	[ { "docid": "c46e9e7fb886da3726be36a9c02c2386", "text": "The main reason to exercise the shares sooner rather than later is that you have to hold the shares for 1 year to gain access to the long-term capital gains rate when you sell your shares. You do not want short-term capital gains rates to apply to these shares when you sell them. If the company is unable to go public and sells privately, you may not have any choice but to sell your shares immediately. If the company goes public you will simply have to hold your shares for a year after you buy them before selling to get the lower tax rate.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "89ec2c32f8875d784be9200e9b3c8c6d", "text": "\"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a \"\"flow\"\" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the \"\"Marked To Market\"\" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2(option price)(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2(0.21)(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been \"\"debited\"\" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e324197e86246532a484c7bfc6877f5", "text": "You are NOT responsible for liquidating the position. You will either end up retaining your 100 sh. after expiration, or they will be called away automatically. You don't have to do anything. Extending profitability can mean different things, but a major consideration is whether or not you want to hold the stock or not. If so, you can buy back the in-the-money call and sell another one at-the-money, or further out. There are lots of options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699832481c80f6dc6233b81f7b71ad2f", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30d4f2b1754be91f57a993e6cefa797c", "text": "The only use of options that I will endorse is selling them. If you believe the market is going down then sell covered, out of the money, calls. Buying calls or buying puts usually wastes money. That is because of a quality called Theta. If the underlying security stays the same the going price of an option will decrease, every day, by the Theta amount. Think of options as insurance. A person only makes money by selling insurance, not by buying it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2424c6baddb65bae9cef52f2015b2a94", "text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "406244a3eb0a84e25e7a7adb357086ab", "text": "\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46", "text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "658da749635d3d732d9faa1a74195a60", "text": "Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebf74e54b59ea99d8e2245b5c5a37902", "text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1a014ae20e4ac635edfa2e332c811da", "text": "\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67", "text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120. Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "156ea79111ede80e9923c3ebe543a75e", "text": "I think that those options might well be your best bet, given the potential 700% return in one year if you're right. You could look and see if any Synthetic Zeros (a Synthetic Zero is a derivative that will pay out a set amount if the underlying security is over a certain price point) exist for the share but chances are if they do they wouldn't offer the 700% return. Also might be worth asking the question at the quant stack exchange to see if they have any other ideas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a978da7bde624c5d93998b4f2d709006", "text": "Try wallstreetsurvivor.com It gives you $100k of pretend money when you sign up, using which you can take various courses on the website. It will teach you how to buy/sell stocks and build your portfolio. I am not sure if they do have Options Trading specifically, but their course line up is great!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94bc6ab37faff03c2d0469edd874382b", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcbaac0fc87e4020f573ccdc19177f29", "text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
120a265b9d67e1aa60e3a2161b0cb219	How to change stock quantity in KMyMoney investment editor?	[ { "docid": "a70f3bb1503144ad1c52173d8d7638ba", "text": "I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eb3b91a7d2eadc3537f0d83721756f61", "text": "The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ccb32cd8143fa9afeef7fda8339111b", "text": "In the US, expense ratios are stated in the Prospectus of the fund, which you must acknowledge as having read before the fund will accept your money to invest. You never acknowledged any such thing? Actually you did when you checked the box saying that you accept the Terms of the Agreement when you made the investment. The expense ratio can be changed by vote of the Board of Directors of the fund but the change must be included in the revised Prospectus of the fund, and current investors must be informed of the change. This can be a direct mailing (or e-mailing) from the mutual fund or an invitation to read the new Prospectus on the fund's website for those who have elected to go paperless. So, yes, the expense ratio can be changed (though not by the manager of the fund, e.g. just because he/she wants a bigger salary or a fancier company car, as you think), and not without notice to investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da5f2a34222c2803b5973c53d2a3b84", "text": "That's up to you. If you instruct your broker to sell shares purchased in specific lots, they can do that -- but doing so requires that you and/or they track specific fractional lots forever afterwards so you know what is still there to be sold. FIFO simplifies the bookkeeping. And I am not convinced selecting specific lots makes much difference; the government gets its share of your profits sooner or later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1356e9e5e523c2d79e5036f86cc129c", "text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2b5a994cca7939cf4143da8b2514a0", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def", "text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "865f792a3a68b5d9bbfd6cd53f6dab8e", "text": "I think if you are only trading stocks with average volume greater than 1M you should not have any trouble entering a 10,000 size trade. If you are you can try a couple of things: Change your order from a market order to a limit order, however this may potentially reduce the number of shares that are actually traded on that day, and you may miss out on some or all of your order. Limit your trading to more liquid stocks, say average daily volumes above 10M or 100M. Apart from that you might have to just put up with some extra slippage and incorporate it into your trading plan. That is you can reduce your R multiple to allow some slippage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0", "text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "666debe67dd0fd4ebc35e1abff7339dd", "text": "One way a lot of people bypass the pattern trading equity requirement is to open multiple brokerage accounts. You have $10k, put $5k in one and $5k in another. Although I don't recommend it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4a4bf82635f2ab1149e9c69c34ecbd0", "text": "Do you have a broker? Any online brokerage (TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Scott Trade, etc) offer the functionality that you want. If you're not interested in opening a brokerage account, you can search for threads here related to stock market simulation, since most of those services also provide the features that you want. If you do you have a physical broker at some firm, contact him/her and ask about the online tools that the brokerage offers. Almost all of them have portfolio management tools available to clients.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101a9c97a94a00238daeb111a94202b4", "text": "\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \"\"stock\"\" called something like \"\"1 oz Gold\"\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "000e3fec8ebbba59c5ea8b774ab05dea", "text": "I use KMyMoney in Linux. They distribute a Mac version too. Plus, it is free!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42d67907fdf339a103597d004144c9be", "text": "When my orders fill, I'll often see a 1000 shares go through over 4-6 transactions, with a few cents difference high to low, but totaling the transaction cost, it adds to one commission (say $10 for my broker). Are you sure a series of partial fills would result in as many as 20 commissions?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c47b52ea6e8fadc7db739bf74c559735", "text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04", "text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
920fa628d2312757a4acf5c1217f119c	UK Online Stock Tradiing for Beginner and Small Amounts?	[ { "docid": "2e963a985a9bfcb61d6590bd0e46d14d", "text": "Try something like this: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/fantasy-trader/ Virtual or fantasy trading is a great way to immerse yourself in that world and not lose your money whilst you make basic mistakes. Once real money is involved, there are some online platforms that are cheaper for lower amount investing than others. This article is a good, recent starting point for you: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-1718291/Pick-best-cheapest-investment-Isa-platform.html Best of luck in the investment casino! (And only risk money you can afford to lose - as with any form of investment, gambling, etc)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "70721bf86cdb0b08669b482392cf7f5e", "text": "Most free stock screeners for UK stocks, even those mentioned above, are very poor and not worth the effort really, and searching for stock screeners on a search engine will only bring up stock screeners for USA stocks. The best free UK stock screener (registration is required although this is FREE) is without any doubt on www.digitallook.com who also provide many other features like five year fundamentals, charts, prospects, etc, which can easily be downloaded onto a spreadsheet. I really wouldn't look elsewhere to be honest unless you are prepared to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9", "text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82fd28a1365ba647adc6c8d74dc38fe2", "text": "The least expensive way to buy such small amounts is through ING's Sharebuilder service. You can perform a real-time trade for $9, or you can add a one-time trade to their investment schedule for $4 (transaction will be processed on the next upcoming Tuesday morning). They also allow you to purchase fractional shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646d740938295d35af899582a87fef54", "text": "\"Yes, there are a lot of places you can research stocks online, Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Reuters etc. It's important to understand that the price of the stock doesn't actually mean anything. Share price is just a function of the market capitalization divided by the number of shares outstanding. As an example take two companies that are both worth $1 million, but Company A has issued 10,000 shares and Company B has issued 100,000 shares. Company A has a share price of $100 while Company B has a share price of just $10. Comparing share price does nothing to indicate the relative value or health of Company A versus Company B. I know there are supposed to be no product recommendations but the dictionary area of investopedia.com is a good source of beginner investing information. And as Joe points out below the questions here with the \"\"stock\"\" tag would also be a good place to start. And while I'm on a roll, the book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a good starting point in investing in the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d7c296e95cd75c05300362e900b9e5b", "text": "It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e70ce25572e4501bd61389f004a1910", "text": "Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a12fe6fd848eb301007de2c233b13e27", "text": "There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9035e3042845744753020ebe12989ddf", "text": "I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9694aacc24a942a9abe95f46e8a967c9", "text": "Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f03ab3bf6064ae72ee8f79afd2225323", "text": "\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e", "text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101a9c97a94a00238daeb111a94202b4", "text": "\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \"\"stock\"\" called something like \"\"1 oz Gold\"\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f41222ce7dc5831f6d274d9d46090a", "text": "I know nice and free stock screener for UK (and 20+ exchanges) - https://unicornbay.com/screener?f=exchange_str\|%3D\|LSE;&s=MarketCapitalization\|desc&p=1\|20 from Unicorn Bay. It supports both fundamental and technical analysis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e1a49099026facd9c7a976bb9804035", "text": "I searched for FTSE 100 fund on Yahoo Finance and found POW FTSE RAF UK 100 (PSRU.L), among many others. Google Finance is another possible source that immediately comes to mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7f444738c8bbd00f7c414e79c8cff0a3	Stock options value	[ { "docid": "2e93cddcced62dfdb09049d2d96c932b", "text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b", "text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779", "text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "742924be536e77e72d8582ba9d07b79e", "text": "Understanding the BS equation is not needed. What is needed is an understanding of the bell curve. You seem to understand volatility. 68% of the time an event will fall inside one standard deviation. 16% of the time it will be higher, 16%, lower. Now, if my $100 stock has a STD of $10, there's a 16% chance it will trade above $110. But if the STD is $5, the chance is 2.3% per the chart below. The higher volatility makes the option more valuable as there's a highr chance of it being 'in the money.' My answer is an over simplification, per your request.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c38937ba80ddc8d850d827280596e896", "text": "\"Your scenario depicts 2 \"\"in the money\"\" options, not \"\"at the money\"\". The former is when the share price is higher than the option strike, the second is when share price is right at strike. I agree this is a highly unlikely scenario, because everyone pricing options knows what everyone else in that stock is doing. Much about an option has everything to do with the remaining time to expiration. Depending on how much more the buyer believes the stock will go up before hitting the expiration date, that could make a big difference in which option they would buy. I agree with the others that if you're seeing this as \"\"real world\"\" then there must be something going on behind the scenes that someone else knows and you don't. I would tread with caution in such a situation and do my homework before making any move. The other big factor that makes your question harder to answer more concisely is that you didn't tell us what the expiration dates on the options are. This makes a difference in how you evaluate them. We could probably be much more helpful to you if you could give us that information.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9f75fbb78003bb77cd4b14e416ba5b2", "text": "I am going to. Like I said I have not traded options much in general, but I can see a lot of potential in derivatives in general, and it makes me kind of grin. In the case of commodities, the advantages are really apparent. The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire, and thus if you are more long term bull on a stock, it would be harder. But for things like commodities, that are shorter term any ways and require margin, it makes a lot of sense IMO. I could see how you could gain a larger diversification through options (being able to bet on Russell 2000, S&P, etc. ) or esoteric markets (electricity). I will look up that book that you mentioned. Thanks man.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0907941b5a3b256dcc6ef439265e293e", "text": "\"There are two components of option valuation, the value that's \"\"in the money\"\" and the \"\"time value.\"\" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer. Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher. Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% \"\"tanking\"\" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c9706bacdfd6d5292d408675b78aaf", "text": "remember that IV is literally the volatility that would be present to equate to the latest price of a particular option contract, assuming the Black-Scholes-Merton model. Yahoo's free finance service lists the IV for all the options that it tracks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace", "text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b77ce1eda52bbf046d67670793dc2e8d", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb7297662734c48964eb593b905aee35", "text": "Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca79662e35a8967e8928ef6b4e487cd4", "text": "yes, you are double counting. Your profit is between ($7.25 and $8) OR ($7.75 and $8.50). in other words, you bought the stock at $7.75 and sold at $8.00 and made $0.50 on top. Profit = $8.00-$7.75+$0.50 (of course all this assumes that the stock is at or above $8.00 when the option expires. If it's below, then your profit = market price - $7.75 + $0.50 by the way the statement won't call me away until the stock reaches $8.50 is wrong. They already paid $0.50 for the right to buy the stock at $8.00. If the stock is $8.01 on the day of expiration your options will be executed(automatically i believe).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1672008e1acaa64033b69362c83ac6c", "text": "P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4650cb6a9fd26ed2e990dcb3e26b60da", "text": "\"There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the \"\"catch\"\"; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the \"\"downside risk\"\" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about \"\"vanilla\"\" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77309b603ad362f75b20265cadb82d0a", "text": "\"As JoeTaxpayer says, there's a lot you can do with just the stock price. Exploring that a bit: Stock prices are a combination of market sentiment and company fundamentals. Options are just a layer on top of that. As such, options are mostly formulaic, which is why you have a hard time finding historical option data -- it's just not that \"\"interesting\"\", technically. \"\"Mostly\"\" because there are known issues with the assumptions the Black-Scholes formula makes. It's pretty good, and importantly, the market relies on it to determine fair option pricing. Option prices are determined by: Relationship of stock price to strike. Both distance and \"\"moneyness\"\". Time to expiration. Dividends. Since dividend payments reduce the intrinsic value of a company, the prospect of dividend payments during the life of a call option depresses the price of the option, as all else equal, without the payments, the stock would be more likely to end up in the money. Reverse the logic for puts. Volatility. Interest rates. But this effect is so tiny, it's safe to ignore. #4, Volatility, is the biggie. Everything else is known. That's why option trading is often considered \"\"volatility trading\"\". There are many ways to skin this cat, but the result is that by using quoted historical values for the stock price, and the dividend payments, and if you like, interest rates, you can very closely determine what the price of the option would have been. \"\"Very closely\"\" depending on your volatility assumption. You could calculate then-historical volatility for each time period, by figuring the average price swing (in either direction) for say the past year (year before the date in question, so you'd do this each day, walking forward). Read up on it, and try various volatility approaches, and see if your results are within a reasonable range. Re the Black-Scholes formula, There's a free spreadsheet downloadable from http://optiontradingtips.com. You might find it useful to grab the concept for coding it up yourself. It's VBA, but you can certainly use that info to translate in your language of choice. Or, if you prefer to read Perl, CPAN has a good module, with full source, of course. I find this approach easier than reading a calculus formula, but I'm a better developer than math-geek :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3905d2c2904e354193891754dc85ccd1", "text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
afe8a87767f8d2d2114ba1d4a0666c20	Can I use a different HSA than PayFlex that came with aetna?	[ { "docid": "4ddf49c562d73412e291a692e7458249", "text": "You can ask your employer for anything that you want. However, most employers, if they are contributing their own money into your HSA, or you are contributing to your own HSA through payroll deduction, only work with one HSA, which is much easier for them to manage. You are free to decline their HSA if you want. However, if they are kicking in free money into your HSA, I don't recommend that you decline it. Just pick the best option you have for investing. As for the money that you are contributing, if you don't want to put your own money into your employer's Aetna HSA, you can open up an HSA with any institution you like. You can even do this and still keep Aetna HSA to take advantage of the employer's contributions. However, your annual limit is still the total of all contributions to all HSA's in your name, whether you make them or your employer makes them. When deciding whether or not to use payroll deduction into the Aetna HSA or to go your own way, keep in mind that payroll deduction skips some payroll taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a78af55b25942c32466b80f0315b329", "text": "There are some cases I'm aware of where a large employer will offer alternative HSA vendors, but this is not the norm as far as I'm aware, and would only be an option if your employer has already negotiated for this with your insurer. It's likely that this specific vendor is built in for the particular HSA product your employer has elected from Aetna. If this really ticks you off on principle, you can check if they offer a stable value fund. If so, you can essentially treat this money as part of your emergency fund, and somewhat reduce your own emergency fund and invest that money however you see fit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2a2fe0109c08c64a110380f5b02751d", "text": "Much of this is incorrect. Aetna owns Payflex for starters, and it's your EMPLOYER who decides which banks and brokers to offer, not Payflex. An HSA is a checking account with an investment account option after a minimum balance is met. A majority of U.S. employers only OFFER an HSA option but don't contribute a penny, so you're lucky you get anything. The easy solution is just keep the money that is sent to your HSA checking account in your checking account, and once a year roll it over into a different bank's HSA. The vast majority of banks offer HSAs that have no ties to a particular broker (i.e. Citibank, PNC, Chase). I have all my HSA funds in HSA Bank which is online but services lots of employers. Not true that most payroll deductions or employer contributions go to a single HSA custodian (bank). They might offer a single bank that either contracts with an investment provider or lets you invest anywhere. But most employers making contributions are large or mid-market employers offering multiple banks, and that trend is growing fast because of defined contribution, private exchanges and vendor product redesigns. Basically, nobody likes having a second bank account for their HSA when their home bank offers one.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "394e2c739f4870cd08159d90823caba2", "text": "\"I had an HSA for two or three years. I found very routinely that my insurance company had negotiated rates with in-network providers. So as I never hit the deductible, I always had to pay 100% of the negotiated rate, but it was still much less than the providers general rate. Sometimes dramatically so. Like I had some blood and urine tests done and the general rate was $450 but the negotiated rate was only $40. I had laser eye surgery and the general rate was something like $1500 but the negotiated rate was more like $500. Et cetera. Other times it was the same or trivially different, like routine office visits it made no difference. I found that I could call the insurance company and ask for the negotiated rate and they would tell me. When I asked the doctor or the hospital, they either couldn't tell me or they wouldn't. It's possible that the doctor's office doesn't really know what rates they've agreed to, they might have just signed some contract with the insurance company that says, yes, we'll accept whatever you give us. But either way, I had to go to the insurance company to find out. You'd think they'd just publish the list on a web site or something. After all, it's to the insurance company's advantage if you go to the cheapest provider. With a \"\"regular\"\" non-HSA plan, they're share of the total is less. Even with an HSA plan if you go to a cheaper provider you are less likely to hit the deductible. Yes, medical care in the U.S. is rather bizarre in that providers routinely expect you to commit to paying for their services before they will tell you the price. Can you imagine any other industry working this way? Can you imagine buying a car and the dealer saying, \"\"I have no idea what this car costs. If you like it, great, take it and drive it home, and in a few weeks we'll send you a bill. And of course whatever amount we put on that bill you are legally obligated to pay, but we refuse to tell you what that amount will be.\"\" The American Medical Association used to have a policy that they considered it \"\"unethical\"\" for doctors to tell patients the price of treatment in advance. I don't know if they still do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "028229a8f677a80531cc3c162478e380", "text": "Your spouse is eligible for an HSA even if you have one as long as she is covered by a qualified high-deductible plan. In the case that you both had HSAs you would be limited in how much you contribute each year, but both can have accounts. In 2015, you could each contribute $3350 to your separate HSA plans. If you have a combined plan, and even if you switched mid year, you could contribute $6650 during that year total to the two HSAs. That can be divided any way you want as long as the total does not exceed that maximum for the year. You can contribute an extra $1000 if you are over 55 years old. (I should probably also mention that you can still make contributions for the 2015 year until April 15, 2016, because it's relevant to most who would read this. Also you can only contribute a percentage of that limit matching the percentage of months that you are covered, but if you are covered for the last month of the year, you can contribute the full amount as long as you are covered for the ENTIRE following year.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "743927f8d0169b21133e551371dd0ba0", "text": "Here are the advantages to the HDHP/HSA option over the PPO option, some of which you've already mentioned: Lower premiums, saving $240 annually. Your employer is contributing $1500 to your HSA. As you mentioned, this covers your deductible if you need it, and if you don't, the $1500 is yours to keep inside your HSA. The ability to contribute more to your HSA. You will be able to contribute additional funds to your HSA and take a tax deduction. Besides the medical expenses applied to your deductible, HSA funds can be spent on medical expenses that are not covered by your insurance, such as dental, vision, chiropractic, etc. Anything left in your HSA at age 65 can be withdrawn just like with a traditional IRA, with tax due (but no penalty) on anything not spent on medical expenses. With the information that you've provided about your two options, I can't think of any scenario where you'd be better off with the PPO. However, you definitely want to look at all the rest of the details to ensure that it is indeed the same coverage between the two options. If you find differences, I wrote an answer on another question that walks you through comparing insurance options under different scenarios.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "659b4f7a7453d785961511d21f6d42d9", "text": "With only $2000 in the account, I wouldn't worry about investing it. Instead, I would roll this over into a new HSA account with a different provider. Find a provider that doesn't charge ongoing fees, perhaps with a local credit union or bank. Although you won't be able to add money to it, you can withdraw as you have eligible medical expenses, until it is gone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "716f67aedf7530387cb17b6994425dca", "text": "Yes you are eligible even if your spouse is enrolled in Medicare. As long as YOU are not enrolled in Medicare you can contribute to an HSA. You may use the money to pay the cost of qualified medical expenses for you and your spouse. Here are some resources with additional information: HSA FAQ's HSA Resources", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77de1f0828136343b16e6cd31563932d", "text": "First, as noted in the comments, you need to pay attention to your network providers. If you are unable to pay exorbitant prices out of pocket, then find an in-network medical provider. if you are unhappy with the in-network provider list (e.g. too distant or not specialists), then discuss switching to another plan or insurer with your employer or broker. Second, many providers will have out of pocket or uninsured price lists, often seen in outdated formats or disused binders. Since you have asked for price lists and not been provided one, I would pursue it with the practice manager (or equivalent, or else a doctor) and ask if they have one. It's possible that the clinic has an out of pocket price list but the front line staff is unaware of it and was never trained on it. Third, if you efforts to secure a price list fail, and you are especially committed to this specific provider, then I would consider engaging in a friendly by direct negotiation with the practice manager or other responsible person. Person they will be amenable to creating a list of prices (if you are particularly proactive and aggressive, you could offer to find out of pocket price lists from other clinics nearby). You could also flat out ask them to charge you a certain fee for office visits (if you do this, try to get some sort of offer or agreed price list in writing). Most medical practices are uncomfortable asking patients for money, so that may mean flat refusal to negotiate but it may also mean surprising willingness to work with you. This route is highly unpredictable before you go down it, and it's dependent on all sorts of things like the ownership structure, business model, and the personalities of the key people there. The easiest answer is to switch clinics. This one sounds very unfriendly to HSA patients.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4995830436bd56620cf73f86aaf1b72c", "text": "There are some points not covered in the other answers that I feel are important to address: In order to be eligible to contribute to an HSA, you must be enrolled in a High Deductible Health insurance Plan (HDHP). In general, I think this is a great idea for most people (who are responsible enough to save up for medical expenses), but for a small portion it may cost more money to enroll in this type of plan, due to high recurring medical costs. You should always weigh the costs of the related insurance plans against the benefit of an HSA. Note that once you open an account and contribute, you can use the funds at any point after that. The eligibility described here is only regarding making new contributions to the account. This may no longer be true, but when I first started using an HSA several years back, I noticed that the fees and costs administered by the providers were higher than I’d come to expect from, say, my IRA administrator. At least, this was true for the accounts I found – perhaps I missed a better option. Furthermore, there was a much smaller selection of investment options available in those HSAs than in other brokerage accounts. If you are not maxing out retirement already, it’s worth comparing fees and historical returns versus those accounts rather than assuming that the tax benefits will make the HSA a better deal. In my book, if it passes these two checks, then the HSA is a tremendous deal that is highly under-utilized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a6add56a8edfee908054fb0814ec892", "text": "Contributing the $150 to put you over the $3k mark is somewhat pointless. The reason is that, although you won't be accumulating any fees, you won't be able to use the money, either, because as soon as you take a distribution, you'll be back under $3k. Instead, I would look at two things: First, are you considering all the ways you can spend this money? Doctor visits, dentist, prescriptions, eyeglasses, chiropractic, and more: there are lots of ways to spend this money, and if you can spend it all in a relatively short amount of time, your problem is solved. The full list of things you can spend it on is in IRS Publication 502. Second, have you talked to a local credit union? Credit unions often offer an HSA account with only a small setup fee and no ongoing monthly fee or minimum balance. If you roll your current HSA money over into your new account, you can then take your time spending the money until it is gone. If you are having trouble locating a good HSA, there is a large list at hsarates.com. Look for one that is available in your state (or nationwide) and has low/no fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47f5d3be84732280911f07b349640b98", "text": "You could open an HSA with a company like Vanguard or Fidelity that offers lower fees and roll the money there if you want to avoid the $3.50/month. The chances of you going until retirement without opportunities to spend down the money in that account on medical expenses seems rather low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e10362aa518b56c4c33dea719b974a9a", "text": "An important risk is that the government may decide to change the rules. For example, prior to 2011, over the counter drugs like aspirin, Tylenol, Nyquil, etc. were eligible expenses. You could use your HSA money to buy as much as you wanted. Beginning in 2011, those rules changed. Now, if you want to spend your HSA money on Tylenol, you need a prescription for it. The value of HSA dollars was diminished in the sense that the universe of eligible expenses was diminished. No one knows what the HSA rules will be in the future. What will be eligible expenses? Who will be eligible providers? What kind of compliance paperwork will be required? What kind of fees will be imposed? Personally, I'm a great believer in HSAs. I've saved in one for years. But remember that the government makes the rules regarding their use. They've changed the rules to the detriment of HSA owners at least once; I won't be surprised if it continues.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "494a0e94763c6f54eaa186768b2c0a3d", "text": "I work in the FSA/HSA/HRA industry and just wanted to point out that if your wife has a medical FSA, you cannot contribute to an HSA whether or not you are covered by her medical insurance plan. The only exception to this per the rules is if your wife's employers plan limits the medical FSA benefit to the employee, your wife, which I can say from experience is extremely rare. It's possible, but I've never personally seen an employer with this in their plan document, so better check first to be sure the FSA is restricted to your wife only. You have to understand the FSA to know why this is true. Unless restricted, your wife can use her medical FSA for herself, her spouse, and any tax dependents. Meaning whether or not she uses the FSA for your eligible expenses you still have 1st dollar coverage from the FSA, making you in-eligible to open and contribute to an HSA until the end of the plan year and possibly grace period if her employer has one in place and she does not spend her funds by the end of the plan year. Hope this helps. If your still not sure, talk to a tax professional, which I am not, but do advise employers and participants on both HSAs and FSAs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb7e57438c6ed8ba47bd2bd2a7ae324a", "text": "I use healthequity. It's just the one I was given, but they actually have really good fund options. There's a .396% yearly administration fee to access their low-cost funds, but the fund fees are really low (.02% for VIIIX, .03% for VBMPX)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29ef6cc191282be351d4331148875757", "text": "\"The presenter suggested we keep records of our claims for 10+ years in paper form. This seemed to be overkill. It would be overkill if you're taking distributions regularly and you have enough valid (and otherwise unreimbursed) medical receipts each year to correspond to your distributions. However, if you are pumping money into the HSA without regular distributions, then you may need to keep receipts for a long time, possibly since the beginning of your HSA. For example: If the IRS was to audit my HSA deductions would the Aetna online claims be adequate? It's better than nothing, but it is not ideal. You need to provide proof of what you actually paid, not just what was billed. (How would the IRS know if you actually paid the bill?) So, the bill and receipt together would be preferred. Also, there are many eligible expenses for HSA that would not be covered by your health insurance and would not appear in your Aetna statements (dental work for example). Personally I have an excel spreadsheet with every eligible expense listed, every contribution and distribution I make, and a box of receipts since I opened the HSA account. Should I also archive screenshots of these claims digitally somewhere? If you have the time and diligence to do it, then it wouldn't hurt. I personally am only one house fire away from having to make a lot of phone calls if I wanted to re-build my receipts folder from scratch. I actually have \"\"scan my HSA receipts\"\" on my todo list (where's it been for years as a pretty low priority). Lastly it makes sense to spend the money in my HSA on anything eligible because you can never roll it over into a retirement account, its shaky if another person (spouse) could get reimbursed for eligible medical expenses if you die, and if you lose your receipts you may not be able to spend all of the HSA money tax free. Is this an accurate assessment or is there a reason why I should not touch the HSA money at all and wait to reimburse my eligible expenses. First off, if you are married the HSA can be transferred to your spouse. But in general, it really depends on what you would do with the money if you distributed it right away. If you need the money to pay debts, bills, etc, then it might make sense to take it, but if it would be extra money that you would invest somewhere, then you should leave it in the HSA because it grows tax free while it's in there and (probably) wouldn't if you take it out. The caveat though is that you need to find an HSA administrator that offers your preferred investment choices. As for your worry that you might lose your receipts, well, that's a valid point- but I wouldn't drive my decision based on that- I would archive them digitally to remove that concern completely. ...Should I reimburse myself from ... the HSA funds if I am not hitting the 401k limit yet? It depends. If it's a Roth 401k, all other things being equal, (you are able to choose the same investments with your HSA as you can choose in your 401K, and the costs are the same), then you are better off leaving the money in your HSA rather than pulling it out and putting it into the Roth 401k. The reason is that there is no tax difference, and once you put it into the 401K you (probably) can't touch it (for free) until you retire. With the HSA, if you could have taken a distribution but chose not to, then you can take that amount of money out anytime you want to without any consequences, just like your normal checking account. However, if you have a traditional 401k, and if taking HSA distributions would increase your cash flow such that you could afford to contribute more to the 401k, then this would lower your tax burden that year by reducing your taxable income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ff1af280caefca969392dcb82bd928c", "text": "First off, you should contact your health plan administrator as soon as possible. Different plans may interact differently with Medicare; any advice we could provide here would be tentative at best. Some of the issues you may face: A person with both Medicare and a QHP would potentially have primary coverage from 2 sources: Medicare and the QHP. No federal law addresses this situation. Under state insurance law an individual generally cannot collect full benefits from each of 2 policies that together pay more than an insured event costs. State law usually specifies how insurance companies will coordinate health benefits when a person has primary coverage from more than one source. In that situation, insurance companies determine which coverage is primary and which is secondary. It’s important to understand that a QHP is not structured to pay secondary benefits, nor are the premiums calculated or adjusted for secondary payment. In addition, a person with Medicare would no longer receive any premium assistance or subsidies under the federal law. While previous federal law makes it illegal for insurance companies to knowingly sell coverage that duplicates Medicare’s coverage when someone is entitled to or enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, there has been no guidance on the issue of someone who already has individual health insurance and then also enrolls in Medicare. We and other consumer organizations have asked state and federal officials for clarification on this complicated situation. As such, it likely is up to the plan how they choose to pay - and I wouldn't expect them to pay much if they think they can avoid it. You may also want to talk to someone at your local Medicare branch office - they may know more about your state specifically; or someone in your state's department of health/human services, or whomever administers the Exchanges (if it's not federal) in your state. Secondly, as far as enrolling for Part B, you should be aware that if she opts not to enroll in Part B at this time, if your wife later chooses to enroll before she turns 65 she will be required to pay a penalty of 10% per 12 month period she was not enrolled. This will revert to 0 when she turns 65 and is then eligible under normal rules, but it will apply every year until then. If she's enrolling during the normal General Enrollment period (Jan-March) then if she fails to enroll then she'll be required to pay that penalty if she later enrolls; if this is a Special Enrollment Period and extends beyond March, she may have the choice of enrolling next year without penalty.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99b5f0c820149b7f2f3a8a74cf04ea55", "text": "There is no distribution limit, only a contribution limit. You can empty your HSA completely without tax or penalty, as long as the expenses are used for eligible medical expenses. In addition, you can reimburse yourself in the future for expenses that you have now, as long as you have an HSA account in place. For example, you said that your dental bill was $3500, and you only had $3300 in your HSA, so you emptied your HSA and paid the rest from your checking account. When you do get more money in the HSA, even if it isn't until next year, you can reimburse yourself for the $200 that you had to pay out of pocket on your dental bill. And if you don't have enough money in your HSA this year to cover all of your birth expenses (congrats, by the way), you can reimburse yourself in a future year. Just make sure you keep good records on what the distributions were used for, in case you get audited.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4bfed54fa7fc4bcf68e48b61f56f622a	If I use stock as collateral for a loan and I default, does the bank pay taxes when they sell my stock?	[ { "docid": "5cf21e874ace52095a9263cd6b1e72b3", "text": "If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ce9291ac985db688b972d9b13bc5999", "text": "\"Will the bank be taxed on the $x received through selling the collateral? Why do you care? They will, of course, although their basis will be different. It is of no concern for you. What is your concern is that the write-off of the loan is taxed as ordinary income (as opposed to capital gains when you sell the stocks) for you. So when the bank seizes the stocks, they will also report to the IRS that they gave you the amount of money that you owed them (which they will \"\"give you\"\" and then put it on the account of the loan). So you get taxed on that amount as income. In addition, you will be taxed on the gains on the stocks, as giving them to the bank is considered a sale. So you may actually find yourself in a situation where you'd be paying taxes twice, once capital gains, and once as ordinary income, on the same money. I would strongly advise against this. If it is a real situation and not a hypothetical question - get a professional tax advice. I'm not a professional, talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8daf26d6c9124d82d2a510f1b0732d88", "text": "\"The short answer is that the exchange of the stock in exchange for the elimination of a debt is a taxable exchange, and gains or losses are possible for the stock investor as well as the bank. The somewhat longer answer is best summarized as noting that banks don't usually accept stocks as collateral, mostly because stock values are volatile and most banks are not equipped to monitor the risk involved but it is very much part of the business of stock brokers. In the USA, as a practical matter I only know of stock brokerages offering loans against stock as part of the standard services of a \"\"margin account\"\". You can get a margin account at any US stock broker. The stockholder can deposit their shares in the margin account and then borrow around 50% of the value, though that is a bit much to borrow and a lower amount would be safer from sudden demands for repayment in the form of margin calls. In a brokerage account I can not imagine a need to repay a margin loan if the stocks dividends plus capital appreciation rises in value faster than the margin loan rate creates interest charges... Trouble begins as the stock value goes down. When the value of the loan exceeds a certain percentage of the stock value, which can depend on the stock and the broker's policy but is also subject to federal rules like Regulation T, the broker can call in the loan and/or take initiative to sell the stock to repay the loan. Notice that this may result in a capital gain or loss, depending on the investor's tax basis which is usually the original cost of the stock. Of course, this sale affects the taxes of the investor irregardless of who gets the money.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bd823731d78946978f4baf36d76778d4", "text": "a bank doesn't lend you money if it hasn't made sure that you can repay your debt in full (plus interests). That's not entirely correct. The bank issues a lot of loans and expects almost all people will pay their debts. The few people who go bankrupt and cannot pay are (more than) compensated for by the people who do pay their debts. The same holds for brokers, e.g. here is an example of the rates they calculate when you trade on margin, effectively borrowing money from them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b71d90f468244b9112ee5d323ffe41af", "text": "You don't generally pay capital gains taxes until you sell the stock. If you bought it in 2013 and the price goes up in 2014 but you just hold on to the stock, you won't have to pay any taxes on it. If you then sold it in 2015 for a profit, you'd have to pay capital gains taxes on the profit. Note that this excludes dividends. Dividends may complicate the matter somewhat. I'm also assuming you are in the U.S. or Canada, or a country like one of those two. It's possible some other country does taxes differently, though it'd surprise me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9369686ff9624d06b4a4d5eeb8a3d237", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2168ffb1dea037ef5b248f1c0643ab7f", "text": "Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7128dd586eef8101003e79d791cd59d9", "text": "The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ff9928c031afb43520082e791325731", "text": "(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f025f3845889d3cc252261cb9cc829", "text": "I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense. If the interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8378244dc29df4226efa9ea00b22aaf4", "text": "Yes, you do. Unless you actually donate it, the loan will be repaid and as such - is an asset for you. On your taxes you report the interest you got paid for the loan. You can claim the interest as a charitable deduction, if you don't effectively charge any (IRS dictates minimum statutory interests for arm-length loan transactions).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48f2f7e7684e11a35af00f9f7ed2509", "text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03fdb0d919a59b4d99869cb080b9b0e5", "text": "Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f367decaddb283c3d6768fa24bb39fb", "text": "For a business, it has absolutely nothing to do with what's in the bank. A business could be billions of dollars in the hole cash wise and still be required to pay taxes, and it can also be flush with billions of dollars in cash and get a refund. It's all from differences between tax accounting and accrual ( standard business) accounting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c139ed3029e9807a71ba21e3f37f4dc", "text": "Yes, you would. You owe it to the person you borrowed the shares from. (source)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93c0dd8ea161a1275c9113b1fd75a006", "text": "2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c74688428cd21ef6eac74e3f0eefdf5", "text": "No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae3d1e7f2ee5a22c82850e4704b0d8d6", "text": "\"Besides what others have mentioned, another thing to watch out for is the tax withholding on withdrawal. If it's a Traditional IRA, they will probably withhold a certain percentage on non-qualified withdrawals. I am not sure if you can ask them not to withhold. I don't remember the percentage, and it varies by state, but let's assume it is 20%. That means that you only receive 80% of the withdrawal amount when you take it out. However, when you deposit the money to complete the \"\"rollover\"\", you need to give them 100% of the withdrawal. That means (assuming the 20% withholding) you need to fork out cash equal to 125% of what you received in cash, within 60 days! That's like several hundred percent APR and hard to meet unless you are certain of receiving a large payment within the time period. And if you forget about this, and you just deposit the same amount that you received (80% of the withdrawal), the remainder (20% of the withdrawal) will count as an early withdrawal, with all the taxes and penalty. So what happens to the 20% withheld that you never received but had to pay anyway? Well, the government has it. It will count as tax paid on your tax return, so it will increase your refund/decrease the amount you owe, but that means you are out that money until tax time! (Unless you decrease the withholding on your salary in the rest of the year to compensate.) If it's a Roth IRA withdrawal on the contribution, there is generally no withholding, so you don't have to worry about the above. (But there is no penalty on withdrawal of Roth IRA contribution anyway.)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bbfbdaf0758bea2de99ae04b35e3233e	How can the ROE on a stock be more than 100%?	[ { "docid": "6072ebcea4cea26764052ce54c25d864", "text": "An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532b401ff5231afc707f25204765076c", "text": "A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2ed911f77568237b1b793b7bbcf80834", "text": "\"A company doesn't offer up 100% of its shares to the market. There's a float amount of varying significance, maybe 30% of the shares are put up for public offer. Generally some amount of current shareholders will pledge some or all of their shares for offer to the public. This may be how the venture capital, private equity or other current investors cash out their initial investment. The company may issue new shares in order to raise money for some initiative. It may be a combination of existing shares and new. Additionally, a company may hold some \"\"treasury shares\"\" on its balance sheet. In this instance fluctuations in the share price directly affect the health of the balance sheet. As far as incentive goes, stock options to management and C-Suite employees keep everyone interested in an increasing stock price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75aa836bc1953b760977b22d48272ce3", "text": "\"Your math is correct. These kind of returns are possible in the capital markets. (By the way, Google Finance shows something completely different for $CANV than my trading console in ThinkorSwim, ToS shows a high of $201, but I believe there may have been some reverse splits that are not accurately reflected in either of these charts) The problems with this strategy are liquidity and timing. Let's talk about liquidity, because that is a greater factor here than the random psychological factors that would have affected you LONG LONG before your $1,000 allowance was worth a million dollars. If you bought $1000 worth of this stock at $.05 share, this would have been 20,000 shares. The week of October 11th, 2011, during the ENTIRE WEEK only 5,000 shares were traded. From this alone, you can see that it would have been impossible for you to even acquire 20,000 shares, for yourself at $.05 because there was nobody to sell them to you. We can't even look at the next week, because there WERE NO TRADES WHATSOEVER, so we have to skip all the way to November 11th, where indeed over 30,000 shares were traded. But this pushed the price all the way up to $2.00, again, there was no way you could have gotten 20,000 shares at $.05 So now, lets talk about liquidation of your shares. After several other highs and lows in the $20s and $30s, are you telling me that after holding this stock for 2 years you WOULDN'T have taken a $500,000 profit at $25.00 ? We are talking about someone that is investing with $1,000 here. I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think \"\"hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!\"\" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c526e569e2ae563e14b933f146c30364", "text": "\"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64b54d4e4ecc2bbf9acb2240ed62c300", "text": "Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time). The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1", "text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc", "text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8c4048dcc3c547e7f46c1ce80de2504", "text": "I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fba69109c372ce3a7f882968dd7b3e36", "text": "Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3de9e9bca0a07a1d3001ebb0cf33d1a", "text": "Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example. In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even. You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example. You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1. Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old. Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683104378e7088f185902f2ccb001608", "text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc49c2f1936608bbed3759d5fdec2dd", "text": "Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfaacbb67aed2a42ee2d7f7e859edd28", "text": "Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f83e907fd4c969acb36a4db865744b4d", "text": "I've read over these responses like a dozen times. It's really cool hearing from a business owner who has experienced things first-hand. Nobody in my family has ever been or known anything about business/stocks/Anything. I'm learning everything from the internet, friends, and now reddit. I'll certainly seek true legal advice but you have no idea how helpful you and every other person on this thread has been. Thank you! I'm all ears to anything else", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d60d0291fb26e11498224481db0d4a9", "text": "\"This is not really the focus of your question, but it's worth noting that if you live in the United States (which your profile says you do), there are tax implications for you (but not for your children), depending on whether or not you charge your children (enough) interest. If you charge less interest than the appropriate Applicable Federal Rate (for May 2016, at least 0.67%), you must pay taxes on the interest payments you would have received from the debtor if you had charged the AFR, provided that the loan is for $10,001 or more (p. 7). This is referred to as \"\"imputed\"\" income.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
18b063b6fe3eb6bc3d9d6d7f57b65e18	How does a limit order work for a credit spread?	[ { "docid": "690e876a256760bd7a439c63fab5b45f", "text": "As you probably know, a credit spread involves buying a call (or put) at one strike and selling another call (or put) at another with the same maturity, so you're dealing with two orders. Your broker will likely have to fill this order themselves, meaning that they'll have to look at the existing bid/asks for the different strikes and wait until the difference matches (or exceeds) your limit order. Obviously they can't place limit orders on the legs individually since they can't guarantee that they will both be executed. They also don't care what the individual prices are; they just care what the difference is. It's possible that they have computer systems that examine existing bids and asks that would fill your order, but it's still done by the broker, not the exchange. The exchange never sees your actual limit order; they will just see the market orders placed by your broker.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b9e505f6ac98def36161692ca6bbb454", "text": "It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8b10a424bd74580716765f8f603b278", "text": "Firstly what are you trading that you could lose more than you put in? If you are simply trading stocks you will not lose more than you put in, unless you are trading on margin. A limit order is basically that, a limit on the maximum price you want your buy order bought at or the minimum price you want your sell order sold at. If you can't be glued to the screen all day when you place a limit order, and the market moves the opposite way, you may miss out on your order being executed. Even if you can be in front of the screen all day, you then have to decide if you want to chase the market of miss out on your purchase or sale. For example, if a stock is trading at $10.10 and you put a limit buy order to buy 1000 shares at or below $10.00 and the price keeps moving up to $10.20, then $10.30 and then $10.50, until it closes the day at $11.00. You then have the choice during the day to miss out on buying the shares or to increase your limit order in order to buy at a higher price. Sometime if the stock is not very liquid, i.e. it does not trade very often and has low volume, the price may hit $10.00 and you may only have part of your order executed, say 500 out of your 1000 shares were bought. This may mean that you may have to increase the price of your remaining order or be happy with only buying 500 shares instead of 1000. The same can happen when you are selling (but in reverse obviously). With market order, however, you are placing a buy order to buy at the next bid price in the depth or a sell order to sell at the next offer price in the depth. See the market depth table below: Note that this price depth table is taken before market open so it seems that the stock is somewhat illiquid with a large gap between the first and second prices in the buyers (bid) prices. When the market opened this gap is closed, as WBC is a major Australian bank and is quite liquid. (the table is for demonstration purposes only). If we pretend that the market was currently open and saw the current market depth for WBC as above, you could decide to place a limit sell order to sell 1000 shares at say $29.91. You would sell 100 shares straight away but your remaining 900 sell order will remain at the top of the Sellers list. If other Buyers come in at $29.91 you may get your whole sale completed, however, if no other Buyers place orders above $29.80 and other Sellers come into the market with sell orders below $29.91, your remaining order may never be executed. If instead you placed a market sell order you would immediately sell 100 shares at $29.91 and the remaining 900 shares at $29.80. (so you would be $99 or just over 0.3% worse off than if you were able to sell the full 1000 shares at $29.91). The question is how low would you have had to lower your limit order price if the price for WBC kept on falling and you had to sell that day? There are risks with whichever type of order you use. You need to determine what the purpose of your order is. Is it to get in or out of the market as soon as possible with the possibility of giving a little bit back to the market? Or is it to get the price you want no matter how long it takes you? That is you are willing to miss out on buying the shares (can miss out on a good buy if the price keeps rising for weeks or months or even years) or you are willing to miss out on selling them right now and can wait for the price to come back up to the price you were willing to sell at (where you may miss out on selling the shares at a good price and they keep on falling and you give back all your profits and more). Just before the onset of the GFC I sold some shares (which I had bought a few years earlier at $3.40) through a market order for $5.96. It had traded just above $6 a few days earlier, but if instead of a market order I had placed a limit order to sell at $6.00 or more I would have missed out on the sale. The price never went back up to $6 or above, and the following week it started dropping very quickly. It is now trading at about $1.30 and has never gone back above $2.00 (5.5 years later). So to me placing a limit order in this case was very risky.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ede4598112e581bd2d95f2881bec6d33", "text": "Traders sometimes look at the depth of the book (number of outstanding limit orders) to try and gauge the sentiment of the market or otherwise use this information to formulate their strategy. If there was a large outstanding buy order at $49.50, there's a decent chance this could increase the price by influencing other traders. However, a limit order at $2 is like an amazon.com price of $200,000 for a book. It's so far away from realistic that it is ignored. People would think it is an error. Submitting this type of order is perfectly legal. If the stock is extremely thinly traded, it might even be encouraged because if someone wanted to sell a bunch and did a really bad job of it, the price could conceivably fall that far and the limit order would be adding liquidity. I guess. Your example is pretty extreme. It is not uncommon for there to be limit orders on the book that are not very close to the trading price. They just sit around. The majority of trades are done by algorithmic traders and institutional traders and they don't tend to do this, but a retail investor may choose to submit an order like that, just hoping against hope. Also, buy orders are not likely to push prices down, no matter what their price is. A sell order, yes (even if it isn't executed).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "388670e63fb77129a0bf0dd35d0389df", "text": "The spread is two trades, one of which opens up some risk one of which limits/cancels the risk. There is nothing stopping you from selling part of the spread opening the door to the risk. You're required to have a margin account to open risky positions, even if the specific spread trade you're attempting to open has a risk limiting/cancelling counterpart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87a5f0d18bc2cb7e78e815104cdd5230", "text": "TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65e15aec404bf25068aecdd8e101821d", "text": "\"This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical \"\"the market\"\". \"\"The market price\"\" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges. (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d75ded6258a5b4aa5a7f8490256dc8a", "text": "You need to use one of each, so a single order wouldn't cover this: The stop-loss order could be placed to handle triggering a sell market order if the stock trades at $95 or lower. If you want, you could use a stop-limit order if you have an exit price in mind should the stock price drop to $95 though that requires setting a price for the stop to execute and then another price for the sell order to execute. The limit sell order could be placed to handle triggering a sell if the stock rises above $105. On the bright side, once either is done the other could be canceled as it isn't applicable anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d963b9d333cb1ac5e02fe08018a6873", "text": "\"I am not familiar with this broker, but I believe this is what is going on: When entering combination orders (in this case the purchase of stocks and the writing of a call), it does not make sense to set a limit price on the two \"\"legs\"\" of the order separately. In that case it may be possible that one order gets executed, but the other not, for example. Instead you can specify the total amount you are willing to pay (net debit) or receive (net credit) per item. For this particular choice of a \"\"buy and write\"\" strategy, a net credit does not make sense as JoeTaxpayer has explained. Hence if you would choose this option, the order would never get executed. For some combinations of options it does make sense however. It is perhaps also good to see where the max gain numbers come from. In the first case, the gain would be maximal if the stock rises to the strike of the call or higher. In that case you would be payed out $2,50 * 100 = $250, but you have paid $1,41100 for the combination, hence this leaves a profit of $109 (disregarding transaction fees). In the other case you would have been paid $1,41 for the position. Hence in that case the total profit would be ($1,41+$2,50)100 = $391. But as said, such an order would not be executed. By the way, note that in your screenshot the bid is at 0, so writing a call would not earn you anything at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f62098abf8c810c830b02bea712faa0", "text": "You can do FOK on both market and limit orders. Normal market orders will partial fill if you want more shares than are being offered, or if someone pulled their order before you get there and now there are fewer shares than you placed a trade for. With a FOK limit order not at the BBO you are shooting in the dark for a quick match, most of the time it does not fill. This is a commonly used order type for UHFT arbitrage. Some exchanges will not attempt to cross it for a match if its price is not at, or better than the market price. When the FOK limit order is at the BBO it is essentially a FOK market order. FYI: Sometimes you have a minimum quantity to fill option, so you can let the order sit on the book until it fills or you cancel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fba9914819f98040a5ae17c9cd641ae5", "text": "From the non-authoritative Investopedia page: A stop-limit order will be executed at a specified price, or better, after a given stop price has been reached. Once the stop price is reached, the stop-limit order becomes a limit order to buy or sell at the limit price or better. So once the stop price has been breached, your limit order is placed and will be on the order books as a $9 ask. For a vanilla stop order, a market order will be placed and will be filled using the highest active bid(s).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63e1f7a823fdb5b5e508d9d552737a91", "text": "If you want to make sure you pay at or below a specific price per share, use a limit order. If you want to buy the stock close to the current price, but aren't price sensitive, use a market order. Market orders are typically not a great idea because if you're buying thousands or tens of thousands of shares this can mean a large swing in cost if the market suddenly changes direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccc59d257311b512fe3377b472a7bb2f", "text": "In simple terms, this is how the shares are traded, however most of the times market orders are placed. Consider below scenario( hypothetical scenario, there are just 2 traders) Buyer is ready to buy 10 shares @ 5$ and seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5.10$, both the orders will remain in open state, unless one wish to change his price, this is an example of limit order. Market orders If seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @5.05$, if buyer wants to buy 20 shares @ market price, then the trade will be executed for 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @ 5.05$", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9e3010cb8d68c726cd0e7bdf9deeaa", "text": "If you want to buy once the price goes up to $101 or above you can place a conditional order to be triggered at $101 or above and for a limit order to entered to buy at $102. This will mean that as soon as the price reaches $101 or above, your limit order will enter the market and you will buy at any price from $102 or below. So if the price just trickles over $101 you will end up buying at around $101 or just over $101. However, if the price gaps above $101, say it gaps up to $101.50, then you will end up buying at around $101.50. If the price gaps up above $102, say $102.50, then your limit order at $102 will hit the market but it will not trade until the price drops back to $102 or below.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "361023b21c7e267e455f2f7d9a7ec418", "text": "\"During the day, market and limit orders are submitted at any time by market participants and there is a bid and an ask that move around over time. Trades occur whenever a market order is submitted or a limit order is submitted that at a price that matches or exceeds an existing limit order. If you submit a market order, it may consume all best-price limit orders and you can get multiple prices, changing the bid or ask at the same time. All that stuff happens during the trading day only. What happens at the end of the day is different. A bunch of orders that were submitted during the day but marked as \"\"on close\"\" are aggregated with any outstanding limit orders to create a single closing price according to the algorithm established by the exchange. Each exchange may handle the details of this closing event differently. For example, the Nasdaq's closing cross or the NYSE's closing auction. The close is the most liquid time of the day, so investors who are trading large amounts and not interested in intraday swings will often submit a market-on-close or limit-on-close order. This minimizes their chance of affecting the price or crossing a big spread. It's actually most relevant for smaller stocks, which may have too little volume during the day to make big trades, but have plenty at the close. In short, the volume you see is due to these on-close orders. The spike in volume most likely has no special information about what will happen overnight or the next day. It's probably just a normal part of the market for illiquid stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f3c534c3679bc20aad8e5a3dbfb959", "text": "\"Correcting Keith's answer (you should have read about these details in the terms and conditions of your bank/broker): Entrustment orders are like a \"\"soft\"\" limit order and meaningless without a validity (which is typically between 1 and 5 days). If you buy silver at an entrustment price above market price, say x when the market offer is m, then parts of your order will likely be filled at the market price. For the remaining quantity there is now a limit, the bank/broker might fill your order over the next 5 days (or however long the validity is) at various prices, such that the overall average price does not exceed x. This is different to a limit order, as it allows the bank/broker to (partially) buy silver at higher prices than x as long as the overall averages is x or less. In a limit set-up you might be (partially) filled at market prices first, but if the market moves above x the bank/broker will not fill any remaining quantities of your order, so you might end up (after a day or 5 days) with a partially filled order. Also note that an entrustment price below the market price and with a short enough validity behaves like a limit price. The 4th order type is sort of an opposite-side limit price: A stop-buy means buy when the market offer quote goes above a certain price, a stop-sell means sell when the market bid quote goes below a certain price. Paired with the entrusment principle, this might mean that you buy/sell on average above/below the price you give. I don't know how big your orders are or will be but always keep in mind that not all of your order might be filled immediately, a so-called partial fill. This is particularly noteworthy when you're in a pro-rata market.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b92f0c17a331e43f4e6009058563ae4d	At what percentage drop should you buy to average down	[ { "docid": "027b35341fe9921666c3bc278cf757d9", "text": "\"TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own. Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares. So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend. (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to \"\"catch a falling knife.\"\" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "634bdaeebed3f415b4930b0e86a0187e", "text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bc2a20185d2fda4812cfb2f6e6d6e19", "text": "Only average down super blue chips with a long history or better still, ETFs or index type funds. I do it with income producing funds as I'm a retiree. Other people may have much shorter horizins.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9195bb2a2faa4f1aa9f86cdf0eb07809", "text": "If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%: A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns. This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations: Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator: This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdf94162520cb34844a06c5ba5755792", "text": "Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon. It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't. Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c13483d7ac67ab58f7636decea28b3f1", "text": "Points are index based. Simple take the total value of the stocks that compose the index, and set it equal to an arbitrary number. (Say 100 or 1000) This becomes your base. Each day, you recalculate the value of the index basket, and relate it to the base. So if our index on day 0 was 100, and the value of the basket went up 1%, the new index would be 101 points. For the example given, the percentage change would be (133.32 -133.68 ) / 133.68 * 100% = -0.27% Keep in mind that an index basket will change in composition over time. Assets are added and removed as the composition of the market changes. For example, the TSX index no longer includes Nortel, a stock that at one time made up a significant portion of the index. I'm not sure if a percentage drop in an index is really a meaningful statistic because of that. It is however, a good way of looking at an individual instrument.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37ecbc9531e92ed178dd05f3ac000953", "text": "Swiss Central bank has a floor of 1.20, the reason why I have this pair is that my downside is limited. The actual differential is about 20 bps but im leveraged 50:1, which gives me a fun 10% annualized. I bought in at 1.2002, meaning my max downside on an investment of 20K (gives 1mn of exposure), is 200$ and my potential profit is 2000. Creating a risk to return of 10:1.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2688f4becf06c94fddfb1ce0810093", "text": "If you were to stick to your guns, then yes, that's what you'd need to do. In practice, that kind of a hit should get your attention, and you'd be wise to look at why your investment dropped 10% in a month. Value averaging, dollar-cost averaging, or any other investment strategy needs to be done with eyes open and ears to the ground. At least with value averaging you need to look at your valuation each month! From my own experience, dollar-cost averaging breeds laziness and I ended up not paying much attention to what I was investing in, and lost a fair bit of money. Bottom line is you still have to think about what you're doing, and adjust.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a99f73816bfe28fe29088b4b48d39f5", "text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48e17e51600b5ac1eb0edcb144985bf8", "text": "\"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b809640eecffebcc467fe3278d7eec43", "text": "Real world example. AGNC = 21.79 time of post. Upcoming .22 cents ex-div Mar 27th Weekly options Mar 27th - $22 strike put has a bid ask spread of .22 / .53. If you can get that put for less than .21 after trade fee's, you'll have yourself a .22 cent arbitrage. Anything more than .21 per contract eats into your arbitrage. At .30 cents you'll only see .13 cent arbitrage. But still have tax liability on .22 cents. (maybe .05 cents tax due to REIT non-exempt dividend rates) So that .13 gain is down to a .08 cents after taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de", "text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6f4f331cde178e6cbfb007797db5f9", "text": "The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afb2b27ef5043f88ddb4453d7898f1c5", "text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b60b4dc09e62f541f1c4c482a5ba87b5", "text": "You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589e8e9ab52c413eb5b16076903fd7a3", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76cafbb1aa70f96e51a3d4abac3ca65e", "text": "How about this rule? Sell 10% of your shares every time they double in price. (of course, only buy stocks that repeatedly double in price)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
36353c762288ff8c83b5bcc8600429af	For an equivalent company security, does it make more sense to trade them in country with dividend tax free?	[ { "docid": "9a1ad7c42d95f740cc786d3707e3ce4d", "text": "You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "128d222913be065a4e270541bff04ba4", "text": "Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "249fd2f459eaf89b1886dd47a39b8995", "text": "Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff50e7e67484be10ab8fad0cdd25241d", "text": "I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient). I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility. To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a16a073fbef02fb2422c039375c8413b", "text": "\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d193462c2812d839a5c8e4ab18f9b52d", "text": "The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c84b819d643d7752d14fc9c0ed08e1e", "text": "No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a456b086923a165402172fdb9c12aa9f", "text": "Please get a view of professional. The DTAA between US and Romaina says both can tax the Dividends. Dividends (1) Dividends paid by a corporation of one of the Contracting States to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed by both Contracting States. (2) The rate of tax imposed by the first-mentioned Contracting State on such dividends shall not exceed 10 percent of the gross amount of the dividend. (3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply if the recipient of the dividends, being a resident of one of the Contracting States, has a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State and the shares with respect to which the dividends are paid are effectively connected with such permanent establishment. In such a case, paragraph (6) of Article 7 (Business Profits) shall apply. Edit: Quite often the wordings are tricky, hence a opinion of qualified professional is recommended. Also realize that UK and Romania are part Euro Zone. This means there are quite a few EU laws that govern taxation and DTAA relevance may be less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d1306a254ef3c211c21b48d9f1c434c", "text": "In cases like this you should be aware that tax treaties may exist and that countries are generally willing to enter into them. Their purpose is to help prevent double taxation. Tax treaties often times give you a better tax rate than even being a resident of the countries in question! (For instance, the Italy to US tax rate is lower than simply doing business in many United States) This should guide your google search, here is something I found for Germany/Spain http://tmagazine.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2011G_CM2300_Spain-Germany-sign-new-tax-treaty.pdf It appears that the dividend tax rate under that treaty is 5% , to my understanding, the income tax rates are often multiples higher! I read that spain's income tax rate is 18% So what I would do is see if there is the possibility of deferring taxes in the lower tax jurisidiction and then doing a large one time dividend when conveninet. But Germany isn't really known for its low taxes, being a Federal Republic, the taxes are levied by both the states and the federal government. Look to see if your business structure can avoid being taxed as the entity level: ie. your business' earnings are always distributed to the owners - which are not germany citizens or residents - as dividends. So this way you avoid Germany's 15% federal corporate tax, and you avoid Spain's 18% income tax, and instead get Spanish dividends at 5% tax. Anyway, contact a tax attorney to help interpret the use of the regulations, but this is the frame of mind you should be thinking in. Because it looks like spain is willing to do a tax credit if you pay taxes in germany, several options here to lower your tax footprint.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24022067526249fc527ac1c368e1754e", "text": "\"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \"\"home\"\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c19f52eb2f363a003051b64b6b2d36e", "text": "\"For non Australian residents: Dividends withholding tax rate is 30%. Depending upon your country of residence where there is a tax treaty in place to avoid double taxation, then this can be reduced. Note that only dividends that are unfranked are subject to this (in Australia, if tax has already been paid by the company then they can distribute dividends as \"\"franked\"\" dividends\"\"). For example, if you owned shares in Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), their most recent dividend from Feb 2015 (Paid 2 April 2015) was $1.98 fully franked. No withholding tax is applicable. There is no capital gains tax for non-residents on share transactions. There are other \"\"tax events\"\" that related to large shareholdings in a company (>10%) with property holdings but I'm guessing that is not an issue. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-return/2014/In-detail/Publications/You-and-your-shares-2013-14/?page=14 https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/ https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/?page=13#Foreign_residents_holding_interests_in_Australian_fixed_trusts https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/regional-tax-centers/asia-pacific-tax-centre/Documents/CountryProfiles/Australia.pdf\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac97477afe8baf421d2bcf1b23bf05dd", "text": "You have a misunderstanding about what it is. Absent differential tax treatment buybacks and dividens are the exact same. period. You're saying it yourself, not buying back stock so they can pay out dividends. What the impetus might be is irrelevant. Dividends are a use of funds competing equally with investments or higher salary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229d3ecda58289b259fc5368abefe568", "text": "In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d3fa3c1fb4a2e3d18fc2865cf5ec1a9", "text": "The same as you would for an individual stock. A stock starts the year at $100, and has $4 in dividends over the year, why would the fact the the stock ends the year at say $90, confuse you? You pay tax on the dividend at the favored rate, if held in a taxable account, obviously, and that's about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6210d2897e4211bf4057a4113912c180", "text": "The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.