query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
45c25686ea32119f4a965600f43cc173
|
What exactly is BATS Chi-X Europe?
|
[
{
"docid": "ca19675b030e68b3aa2c000b08464550",
"text": "I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f1adf878c5b0b42402fc0a764163ad9",
"text": "Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b223009f6d87477300607f9cefa4b95",
"text": "BATS CHi-X Europe is a market maker. They provide liquidity to the order books of different kinds of equities on certain exchanges. So the London Stock Exchange lists equities and the order books show the orders of different market participants. Most of those market participants are market makers. They allow others to complete a trade of an equity closer to the price that persons wants, in a faster time period and in larger amounts, than if there were no market makers providing liquidity.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8408b34262a6dcc071c614af97fb76e9",
"text": "“ Dentist Country” è la migliore clinica dentale che fornisce trattamenti odontoiatrici di alta qualità in Moldavia a Chisinau. Offriamo l'Implantologia dentale superiore a prezzi accessibili in tempi molto brevi. Contattateci al +3736995 4445, 24/7, anche se siamo offline!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b51e9d6798481dee3d4b6905d09b90bd",
"text": "http://www.dewithpallets.nl/europallets-inleveren Eenmalige Pallets,Houten Pallets,Wegwerppallets,Europallets Kopen,Pallet EPAL is het Europese statiegeld systeem voor Europallets. De EPAL normering is opgezet om de kwaliteit, afmetingen en eisen aan een europallet vast te leggen. Zo zijn er reparatienormen en productienormen voor europallets. Deze eisen zijn vastgelegd door Nederpal en internationaal door EPAL.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61d3a49ea8787da194a88b1185caba5",
"text": "Bắt đầu từ việc mua nguyên liệu thô để chuyển tải kết quả cuối cùng, tất cả các giai đoạn tạo ra đều được các chuyên gia xem xét. Với văn phòng kho bãi khổng lồ và bộ phận đóng gói hoàn chỉnh, chúng tôi đã đảm bảo yêu cầu hàng loạt của khách hàng đúng giờ. Bất cứ khi nào bạn muốn sửa chữa ngôi nhà và vach ngan thạch cao hoặc trần nhà trong nhà bạn thì bạn nên chọn đúng nơi đáng tin cậy ở Việt Nam. Đội ngũ chuyên nghiệp của chúng tôi cung cấp dịch vụ tốt hơn với chất lượng cao.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e9224d8512f1ab21eac0bc01823610",
"text": "Компанията предлага най-добрите ИТ продукти. Ние даваме различни видове продукти, като например 3D флаш, USB Flash и Power банка. Използвахме много лесно 3D светкавицата, Power банката и USB Flash. Флаш паметта е форма на непрекъсната памет, която изтрива данни в притурки, наречени блокове. Блокът, съхраняван на флаш миг за размисъл, трябва да бъде изтрит, преди данните да бъдат записани или програмирани към микрочипа. Възпроизвеждането на 3D флашка запазва записите за продължителен период от време, Дали устройството, свързано със светкавица, е включено или изключено. USB флаш дисковете се използват редовно за същите цели, за които вече са били използвани флопи дискове или компактдискове; т.е. За съхранение записва резервно копие и превключване на компютърни файлове.Те са по-малки, по-бързи, имат куп случаи с допълнителни възможности и са по-дълготрайни и надеждни, защото нямат движещи се части.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b7db97ca1ebbbe49411353fc877631a",
"text": "Houtpellets zijn kleine cilindrische rolletjes gemaakt van 100% natuurlijk hout. Bij de persing van de pellets worden geen lijmen of andere chemische producten gebruikt. Het hout is afkomstig is van zaagsel en afval van het verwerken van hout. De energie die nodig is om pellets te maken is een factor 10 lager dan van bijvoorbeeld aardolie Stoken met houtpellets is makkelijk en gezellig.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa3b273d92cf42d7508a5819a3b8b2a4",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/jul/21/concorde-was-the-flying-brexit-a-different-era-but-the-same-mistakes?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_reddit_is_fun) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Concorde, the fastest lame duck ever built, was a flying Brexit. > What did politicians say about Concorde? Well, Concorde was not only going to bring supersonic speed to civil air travel, but also ensure that Britain could capture a crucial new export market and create a world-beating aviation industry in the coming supersonic revolution. > As secretary of state for industry, Tony Benn revealed to parliament in 1974 that Britain would not recover any of the £600m that the government spent on Concorde. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6opnmm/concorde_a_different_era_but_the_same_mistakes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~172326 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*: **Concorde**^#1 **Britain**^#2 **government**^#3 **project**^#4 **cost**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7c581c2f0f890db0f521dbf6c846ccc",
"text": "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | NEW Майнинг FLEEX!Бонус 100 ГХС при регистрации!Регистрируйся и собирай сатоши биткоина на автомате! Description | ¦ Ссылка на регистрацию в проектах: | Fleex: https://goo.gl/D3M9eO =========================================== ¦ Бинарные опционы Олимп Трейд https://goo.gl/DKryBH ====== Вступайте в Мою команду! =============== ¦? Моя группа https://vk.com/criptovaluta2016 ====== Как связаться со мной =============== ¦? Я в VK №1: https://vk.com/a.alex81 ¦? Я в Одноклассниках: https://ok.ru/alex6373 ¦? Я в Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Alex6373 ¦? Мой Skype: samara77221 ( добавляйтесь с пометкой от канала ... Length | 0:02:58 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d106c1c5d42b2ddde5541b11717ae9a",
"text": "Нашата компания има добра репутация на пазара. Когато става дума за физическо създаване на външна светкавица, най-много идват с въртящи се и създаване на 3D Power Bank, За да позволи по-реалистични и по-меки светлинни ефекти чрез подскачане на светлина от бяла 3D флашка или рефлектор над или отстрани на обекта. Уеб разработването може също така да интегрира 3D Flash анимации много добре с други уеб технологии. Това може да бъде изключително широколентова 3D Flash, в сравнение с други начини за показване на мултимедийно съдържание.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da5fca7ae87813bfe4a5cd01a172838",
"text": "\"Does anyone else find it... \"\"odd\"\"... That the EU keeps spanking uber-successful American companies... Yet, the US has never needed to do the same to any European companies? We only go after them for such petty reasons as explicitly funding terrorism or soliciting US tax evaders as their core marketing strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b973b75fb0b7922805a00f64247a9c7c",
"text": "December, 6, 2011 ( 03:00 pm) :- Comex Silver have strong support at $ 31.60 above this level Silver trend looking side but resistance also at $ 33.20. Whole market investors are very much depend on the views of the European central bank which is on the 8th December 2011, European central bank President Mario will announce the financial package for the help of Italy & other European countries. Market will be in range of $ 31.60 - $ 33.20 then short term charity after the 8th December 2011 ECB & BOE meeting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df846c453579a433f58e87517a9523e4",
"text": "\"Spain is THEFT and murder. Greece is MURDER and theft. Italy is murder and theft. So is Germany and Japan and the US and Africa and everyone else except me. That's how come I know I'm special. How can you evil fuckheads defeat me? Why should a responsible nation be forced to subsidize an irresponsible nation? Because, FUCK YOU, that's why. Apparently. Let's get rid of the \"\"leaders\"\" and get down to the business of deciding who is the WINNER! Wouldn't you rather be DEAD than the LOSER? EZPZ! You CAN be dead if you're the loser! Let's all square off. The Whites, the niggers, the Jews, The asians, et al...and fight it out for ULTIMATE CORRECTNESS!!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b208fcc630314f686b724412c5580ab",
"text": "Isn't Germany better able to handle population loss, though? The EU allows freedom of movement, so whatever jobs Germans can't fill, a Spaniard, Italian, or Bulgarian can fill instead. Japan doesn't have anything like that and is actually very xenophobic from what I've heard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef1a5ddaa7363bda3e1a52e91614d78a",
"text": "Libertarian pixie dust is the magical substance that allows libertarian defundingbudgets to work. It is a truly amazing substance that makes market failures disappear, private interests capable of self-regulation for the common good over short-term gains, and turns the tragedy of the commons into a comedy of the commons. It's how Ron will decide which 20% of research the CDC will halt and how the communications and broadcast industries will play nice without the FCC once he eliminates them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43260c30a9f4c66087abbcab6bc41ac5",
"text": "Dexmet offers a wide range of expanded metal foils and can produce rolls up to 1,200mm (48”) in width. Dexmet’s precision expansion process ensures high reproducibility leading to a more consistent final product and lower cost of quality. For more information email us at: sales@dexmet.com or call us at 800-714-8736/(203) 294-4440 and Fax at (203) 294-7899. Visit our website: www.dexmet.com.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd148c6144907a4ce883f384e211046",
"text": "But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f1846becf3171c8b33799a66d3e333b6
|
Options vs Stocks which is more profitable
|
[
{
"docid": "9202bd625ffd0044071a07a430da5ddb",
"text": "Nearly 3 years ago, I wrote an article, Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 which described a bet in which a 35% move in the stock returned 354% on the option trade. Leverage works both ways, no move, or a slight move down, and the bet would have been lost. While I find this to be entertaining, I don't call it investing. With $2-$3K, I recommend paper trading first, and if you enter option trades, no one trade should be more than 20% of this money. If you had $50K in betting money, no position over 10%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcfd48f1abdc29756bafad262e1d8003",
"text": "The first thing that I learned the hard way (by trying my hand at actual options trading) is that liquidity matters. So few people are interested in trading the same options that I am that it is easy to get stuck holding profitable contracts into expiration unless I offer to sell them for a lot less than they are worth. I also learned that options are a kind of insurance,and no one makes money (in the long run) buying insurance. So you can use options to hedge and thereby prevent losses, but you also blunt your gains. Edit: IMO,options (in the long run) only make money for the brokers as you pay a commission both on the buy and on the sell. With my broker the commission on options is higher than the commission on stocks (or ETFs).",
"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": "5eba55b8b3ae2afd8cc8c689c49f5463",
"text": "\"More perspective on whether buying the stock (\"\"going long\"\") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a \"\"non-thin\"\" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the \"\"investors\"\" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439a9d97937e6006281a1741048d939e",
"text": "\"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\"",
"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": "296b361ed0f63151731a3b9dffe07567",
"text": "Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to. That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you. You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit. That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge. With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "252190f8cf27a50f5c1992c752c1fd77",
"text": "There is a reason why most professional option traders are sellers instead of buyers. Option sellers IMO are analogous to insurance companies that come out ahead in the long run. That is not to say if you are bullish about a stock then you should not buy it. I personally would never buy an option outright and look to reduce my cost basis by selling options around it such as:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3720ffc1b8dad0dbb9ca492cb0ba5d06",
"text": "\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \"\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\"\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14bcc89482bb4b907c6e73b140f53a4b",
"text": "Options are a derivative product, and in this case, derive their value from an underlying security, a traded stock. An option gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a given price (the strike price) by a given time (the expiration date.) What I just described is a call option. The opposite instrument is a put, giving you the right, but not the obligation, to sell the stock at a given price. Volumes have been written on the subject, but I'd suggest that for a custodial Roth, I'd not activate the ability to trade options. How to get started with options investing? offers a nice introduction to trading options. In my response, I offer an example of a trade that's actually less risky due to the option component.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8670fb91e11f17dc0a85b420ec57534",
"text": "Have a read of this PF&M article, which @Blackjack has an excellent answer that speaks around risk. Answers which suggest that the return is proportional to the amount invested is a very simplistic argument. It is far more complex than that. I would content that your initial question Does investing more money into stocks increase chances of profit? is not the best question. The answer is it depends upon your investment methodology. The following will increase your chance of overall profit in the stock market",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa363ff5c09f42ad29c604cfe28039c",
"text": "The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "732fda61166915a989cbf57847ea2d6b",
"text": "\"In futures, once you have established your position, you will earn or lose money depending on what the underlying does. Theoretically, if you had no stop, you could lose far more than you invested. An option will slowly lose all its value if the stock does not rise (assume it is out of the money when purchased). Depending on the strike, it could rise substantially and you'd still lose all your money. But you can't lose more than you put in. So options have limited risk compared to futures, at the expense of a decaying \"\"time value\"\" that you will effectively be paying while holding the option.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef598db00822ea62dc1ec99fb6904b32",
"text": "Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view.",
"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": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877",
"text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d015bb7fb08fc382d9aa62e25c1b767a",
"text": "It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8099a97c02fab67bcfe613d07362cedd",
"text": "Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "043403925d1b5a388d2882a62cad96ed",
"text": "An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba759133d90688f4ee7fd1d2563192e1",
"text": "how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8e32cc9f939d304764cbc2eb04b2f8e0
|
Why can Robin Hood offer trading without commissions?
|
[
{
"docid": "92abb54fe73671bf646df18cdfc1019f",
"text": "It isn't the first initiative (see link below) and maybe this one will stick around. Time will be a good test. Here is an article on it.... http://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/020515/how-robinhood-makes-money.asp They plan to make money off unused balances - so they hope to get the masses signed up using the 0$ fees. Also, no type of advanced trading, just limit and market orders. Think of it this way - even if someone puts in 100$ and buys a stock at 88$...that 12$ sits there. Multiply that by say....200,000 accounts and then do a basic 3% return on that. Also, they plan for margin accounts in the future. Time will tell.... sort of like I use Acorn right now (but it charges a fee to invest - a slightly higher than normal one). I signed up for fun and am just letting it ride.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc7555754acdc44099d4e3b5c47bde52",
"text": "\"All discount brokers offer a commission structure that is based on the average kind of order that their target audience will make. Different brokers advertise to different target audiences. They could all have a lot lower commissions than they do. The maximum commission price for the order ticket is set at $99 by the industry securities regulators. When discount brokers came along and started offering $2 - $9.99 trades, it was simply because these new companies could be competitive in a place where incumbents were overcharging. The same exists with Robinhood. The market landscape and costs have changed over the last decade with regulation NMS, and other brokerage firms never needed to update drastically because they could continue making a lot on commissions with nobody questioning it. The conclusion being that other brokers can also charge a lot less, despite their other overhead costs. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms (and anyone else trading directly with the exchanges), are paid by the exchanges for adding liquidity. Not only are many trades placed with no commission for the broker, they actually earn money for placing the trade. If Robinhood was doing you any favors, they would be paying you. But nobody questions free commissions so they don't. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms, sells your trading data to the highest bidder. This is called \"\"payment for order flow\"\", these subscribers see your order on the internet in route to the exhange, and before your order gets to the exchange, the subscriber sends a different order to the exchange so they either get filled before you do (analogous to front running, but different enough to not be illegal) or they alter the price of the thing you wanted to buy or sell so that you have to get a worse price. These subscribers have faster computers and faster internet access than other market participants, so are able to do this so quickly. They are also burning a lot of venture capital like all startups. You shouldn't place too much faith in the idea they are making [enough] money. They also have plans to earn interest off of balances in a variety of ways and offer more options at a price (like margin accounts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de4f585dcd62d798d90c953541fa082",
"text": "Robinhood does offer premium products that they charge for-I suspect we will see more of that in the future. They do not change the bid/ask spread as some have said because they have to give you the NBBO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d2ef1dff37af96aaffcddc92c658b",
"text": "They make money off you by increasing the spread you buy and sell your stocks through them. So for example, if the normal spread for a stock was $10.00 for a buy and $10.02 for a sell, they might have a spread of $9.98 for the buy and $10.02 for the sell. So for an order of 1000 shares (approx. $10000) they would make $0.02 per share which would equal $20.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a708ffe12cffb35fe9351333386cd171",
"text": "They mostly make money off of the spread between your order and the spread of the buy and sell currently in the market. As others have previously explained, their buy/sell spreads are a little lacklustre.",
"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": "980cecc6af873f36e39625d078eb2647",
"text": "You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f",
"text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ada9d0a627c6197e572ac50d0b4cf55d",
"text": "Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22",
"text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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 $1,41*100 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": "5e8494e54f4125111114c7361174730d",
"text": "\"Am I wrong? Yes. The exchanges are most definitely not \"\"good ole boys clubs\"\". They provide a service (a huge, liquid and very fast market), and they want to be paid for it. Additionally, since direct participants in their system can cause serious and expensive disruptions, they allow only organizations that know what they're doing and can pay for any damages the cause. Is there a way to invest without an intermediary? Certainly, but if you have to ask this question, it's the last thing you should do. Typically such offers are only superior to people who have large investments sums and know what they're doing - as an inexperienced investor, chances are that you'll end up losing everything to some fraudster. Honestly, large exchanges have become so cheap (e.g. XETRA costs 2.52 EUR + 0.0504% per trade) that if you're actually investing, then exchange fees are completely irrelevant. The only exception may be if you want to use a dollar-cost averaging strategy and don't have a lot of cash every month - fixed fees can be significant then. Many banks offer investments plans that cover this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa718696681523ba8b60263c70784ca7",
"text": "I don't believe from reading the responses above that Questrade is doing anything 'original' or 'different' much less 'bad'. In RRSPs you are not allowed to go into debt. So the costs of all trades must be covered. If there is not enough USD to pay the bill then enough CAD is converted to do so. What else would anyone expect? How margin accounts work depends on whether the broker sets up different accounts for different currencies. Some do, some don't. The whole point of using 'margin' is to buy securities when you don't have the cash to cover the cost. The result is a 'short' position in the cash. Short positions accrue interest expense which is added to the balance once a month. Every broker does this. If you buy a US stock in a USD account without the cash to cover it, you will end up with USD margin debt. If you buy US stock in an account that co-mingles both USD and CAD assets and cash, then there will be options during the trade asking if you want to settle in USD or CAD. If you settle in CAD then obviously the broker will convert the necessary CAD funds to pay for it. If you settle in US funds, but there is no USD cash in the account, then again, you have created a short position in USD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a5caacca9c03cc06f281e38db8dad98",
"text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1d874c533687d132fc5fade9d721e0d0",
"text": "Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47",
"text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e",
"text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4c507a80e084edb607b3096f6e1e8cf",
"text": "It's a good answer. I was alluding to cryptocurrency such as bitcoin which was a pretty genius invention (blockchain and mining) to solve the honesty problem (counterparty risk) you outlined when there's no trusted middleman to help keep people honest. Sounds like a dodgy cat though!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f710fd6dbc5785f5ee8dd817323e99c",
"text": "Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
51d7904f5715d61f36cfa6b7390cc4af
|
Is there a time limit to cover an open short position? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "9be77ec1a7a6711cd9e39215f344a6e9",
"text": "\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6eeae50d64c7628d4b012453cccd6cc4",
"text": "Is it correct that there is no limit on the length of the time that the company can keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks, unlike for the debt of the company where there is a limit? Yes that is correct, there is no limit. But a company can buy back its shares any time it wants. Anyone else can also buy shares on the market whenever they want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c0ba6d26ca860bf07777e2e195e6ea",
"text": "\"4PM is the market close in NYC, so yes, time looks good. If \"\"out of the money,\"\" they expire worthless. If \"\"in the money,\"\" it depends on your broker's rules, they can exercise the option, and you'll need to have the money to cover on Monday or they can do an exercise/sell, in which case, you'd have two commissions but get your profit. The broker will need to tell you their exact procedure, I don't believe it's universal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b04f790ab2bc20075ad02ef249001c1e",
"text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3d866356d946c26a7340a1cb7c42f55",
"text": "\"A \"\"covered put\"\" of the form of being short, and buying at the strike price if the \"\"put ... is put\"\" (excercise), is off the table simply because you can't do shorts in the retirement account. Even if you feel you \"\"win\"\" the argument that you're hedged by being short, any broker can say, \"\"we simply forbid shorts\"\" and that's that. A \"\"covered put\"\" of the form of posting the cash, and spending it to buy at the strike price if the \"\"put ... is put\"\" (excercise), might be forbidden by brokerages because, frankly, how do you account for the \"\"dedicated\"\" cash? Is it locked down like margin is, or escrow, or what? I don't know offhand how I would address that in my very own firm. Thus, any broker could say, \"\"we forbid it\"\" and that's that. The other answers are very interesting in conjunction with this. JoeTaxpayer says, very paraphrased, 'just cuz it's legal doesn't mean we have to offer it.' Jaydles says (again, completely paraphrasing), 'complex stuff for a safe little retirement savings account;' 'difficult to administer' (as I said, how do you account for it); and 'tradition' So maybe look at Scott, per Thorn's answer, LOL. It appears that you can shop around on this issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffc2696f44abc36f9a01f7d5177739f5",
"text": "http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a87a785ece5786dd7c3b3761d25d5e96",
"text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544edd3bd1f3734a332ddf9166bad4ae",
"text": "I use over half my buying power of my portfolio for options, and I'm not a fan of any of the strategies listed above either (I stay away from negative theta trades for the most part), but I just listed them to point out that saying the reason someone wouldn't enter a short position is for fear of infinite losses is asinine. It's easy enough to make any trade risk defined if that is something the trader cares about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e4de8d93d1a6251e291aae36e43b24",
"text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9058b6755c59aa95043d2ea72c11b6a",
"text": "\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5f9b74392d8746fd27848370364e09b",
"text": "This is a Short Diagonal Calender Put Spread Generally, you're writing that long dated one at the money, and buying the short dated one out of the money. The maximum amount that can be made is if the stock breaks out strongly to the upside, and you keep the upfront credit minus whatever small amount it took to buy the April puts back. You can also make money if it breaks strongly to the downside, but only if the credit when you opened your positions was more than $10. Example: Now say the stock falls to $500 by the time of that march expiration. You'd make $90/share on the march put, and lose $100/share on the April put (or a little more; but that deep in the money, there won't be much premium on it). That's a loss of $10/share, or -$1000. So: I make a point of pointing this out because in that article I linked to the fact that your upfront credit needs to be greater than the strike spread in order to profit to the downside is not clearly mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4d3454995bfc832e60836cefe5af3c",
"text": "\"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8258418510d335f3378e71ed7ab30e",
"text": "An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1695261b4ee40cb33966686a30309dac",
"text": "Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c494d981cd42f26b230f546bd8aa58c1",
"text": "If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ff8c050b9d122a67cbda18cbe07fd862
|
Where to find out conversion ratio between General Motors bonds and new GM stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "03a783452b4908e9fcc071843916546c",
"text": "Depending on the specific bond, here is the official info. http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/index.html Bottom line, it won't be determined for a while yet, as the filing with the Bankruptcy Court still has lots of blanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c7408482f9d6197e92aa8f2758cbc91",
"text": "I would imagine that as a holder you will receive information in the post when it's made public, but I don't think it's been decided yet. This thread on the Motley Fool boards is keeping an eye on them - you might want to keep an eye on the thread.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c2716abf18c9873139c68bc1960ebb",
"text": "Looks like the result got decided recently, with a little uncertainty about exactly how much is the total allowed claims: http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/plan_disclosure.html http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/pdf/GUC_Trust_Agreement.pdf They give the following example: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the GUC Trust Agreement, a holder of a Disputed Claim in the Amount of $2,000,000 that was Allowed in the amount of $1,000,000 (A) as of the end of the first calendar quarter would receive: Corresponding to the Distribution to the Holders of Initial Allowed Claims: Corresponding to the First Quarter Distribution to Holders of Units: Total:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "af78c4c4186788dd4ac2f120b3c02a17",
"text": "Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e3c2a7eda895cea7c4aa4b482fc9f5e9",
"text": "Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89c2990dfb7720502059f4fcbbbfa872",
"text": "I dont know if this data is available for the 1980s, but this response to an old question of mine discusses how you can pull stock related information from google or yahoo finance over a certain period of time. You could do this in excel or google spreadsheet and see if you could get the data you're looking for. Quote from old post: Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b30bd7a9465bf07e15893e3617051654",
"text": "\"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the \"\"board of directors\"\" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for. Advice, things to consider as I move forward?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "1109a029b9265828ac0b300a07184763",
"text": "\"This is \"\"incentive financing\"\". Simply put, the car company isn't in the business of making money by buying government bonds. They're in the business of making money by selling cars. If you are \"\"qualified\"\" from a credit standpoint, and want to buy a $20k car on any given Sunday, you'll typically be offered a loan of between 6% and 9%. Let's say this loan is for three years and you can offer $4000 down payment and/or trade. The required monthly payment on the remaining $16k at the high end of 9% is $508.80, which over 3 years means you'll pay $2,316.64 in interest. Now, that may sound like a good chunk of change, and for the ordinary individual, it is, possibly enough that you decide not to buy today. Now, let's say, all other things being equal, that the company is offering 0.9% incentive financing. Same price, same down payment, same loan term. Your payments over 3 years decrease to $450.64, and over the same loan term you would only pay $222.97 in interest. You save over $2,093.67 in interest over three years, which for you is again a decent chunk of change. Theoretically, the car company's losing that same $2,093.67 in interest by offering this deal, and depending on how it's getting the money it lends you (most financial companies are middlemen, getting money from bond-buying investors who expect a rate of return), that could be a real loss and not just opportunity cost. But, that incentive got you to walk in their door, and not their competitor's. It helped convince you to buy the $20,000 car. The gross margin on that car (price minus direct costs) is typically 20% for the dealer, plus another 20% for the manufacturer, so by giving up the $2,000 on the financing side, the dealer and manufacturer just earned themselves 4 times that much. On top of that, by buying that car, you're committing to buy the parts for the car, a side business with even higher margins, of which the car company gets a pretty big chunk. You may even be required to use dealer service while the car's under warranty in order to keep the warranty valid, another cha-ching. When you get right down to it, the loss from the incentive financing is drowned in the gross profits they make from selling the car to you. Now, in reality, it's a fine balance. The percentages I mentioned are gross margins (EBITDASG&A - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Sales, General and Administrative costs; basically, just revenue minus direct cost of goods sold). Add in all these side costs and you get a net margin of only about 3.5% of revenue, so your $20k car purchase may only make the car company's stakeholders $700 on the sale, plus slightly higher net margins on parts and service over the life of the car. Because incentive financing is typically only offered through the company's own financing subsidiary, the loss isn't in the form of a cost paid, but simply a revenue not realized, but it can still move a car company from net positive to net negative earnings if the program is too successful. This is why not everyone does it, and not all at the same time; if you're selling enough cars without it, why give away money? Typically, these incentives are offered for two reasons; to clear out old cars or excess inventory, or to maintain ground against a competitor's stronger sales numbers. Keeping cars on a lot ready to sell is expensive, and so is not having your brand driving around on the street turning heads and imprinting their name on the minds of potential customers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b16542ff6aa0d91ed303490a3691bc1",
"text": "You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7087e71e1c3391d3fe316d13337cd21b",
"text": "In addition to the GE move, Buffett's firm also added a large share of Synchrony, equalling about $520.7 in value, and a $418.1 million stake in Store Capital. So, they bought one regular sized share? This is Why BI-journalists doesnt work in IB...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7d9fd9278d1df7eff6f2b32d543ed49d",
"text": "I've had luck finding old stock information in the Google scanned newspaper archives. Unfortunately there does not appear to be a way to search exactly by date, but a little browsing /experimenting should get what you want. For instance, here's a source which shows the price to be 36 3/4 (as far as I can read anyway) on that date.",
"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": "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": "78c1dad9e8e61a6da10385bf32fbcf66",
"text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c5ba25d8861a0328bead64dbec09db3
|
Does the bid price of a stock change depending on which brokerage I am using?
|
[
{
"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": "f8761688711d9496cff3d147c2fd93d8",
"text": "I don't think that the trading volume would impact a broker's ability to find shares to short. You might think that a lot more people are trying to short a stock during regular trading hours than in the pre-market, and that's probably true. But what's also true is that a lot more people are covering their shorts during regular trading hours than in the pre-market. For stocks that have difficulty in finding shares to short, any time someone covers a short is an opportunity for you to enter a short. If you want to short a stock and your broker is rejecting your order because they can't find shares to short, then I would recommend that you continue placing that order throughout the day. You might get lucky and submit one of those orders right after someone else has covered their short and before anyone else can enter a short. I have had success doing this in the past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9acd1c0fa638544a342b47e02511496c",
"text": "Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de4f585dcd62d798d90c953541fa082",
"text": "Robinhood does offer premium products that they charge for-I suspect we will see more of that in the future. They do not change the bid/ask spread as some have said because they have to give you the NBBO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddd428be039237dadd3db4178599ba5e",
"text": "But I'm not choosing to forgo negotiating on my own. Someone else with ties to the listings is giving special access to my negotiations. Given access I can't get. I'd rather negotiate on my own, usually adding someone in the middle of a conversation between 2 individuals is bad for everyone. I'm not being given the option to negotiate on my own, I either take the artificially inflated rate or skip investing all together because I can't get the access that HFT's have, nor can I negotiate around them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68138e88a6dcd8b7749fdf0f2a5ce45f",
"text": "It definitely depends on the exchange you are trading on. I'm not familiar with Scottrade, but a standard practice is to fulfill limit orders in the order they are placed. Most of the time, you wouldn't see stocks trade significantly under your bid price, but since penny stocks are very volatile, it's more likely their price could drop quickly past your bid and then return above it while only fulfilling a portion of the orders placed. Example 1. Penny stock priced at $0.12 2. Others place limit orders to buy at $0.10 3. You place limit order to buy at $0.10 4. Stock price drops to $0.07 and some orders are filled (anything $0.07 or higher) based on a first-come first-served basis 5. Due to the increase in purchases of the penny stock, the price rises above $0.10 before your order is filled ***EDIT*** - Adding additional clarification from comment section. A second example If the price drops from $0.12 to $0.07, then orders for all prices from $0.07 and above will start to be filled from the oldest order first. That might mean that the oldest order was a limit buy order for 100 shares at $0.09, and since that is above the current ask price, it will be filled first. The next order might be for 800 shares at $0.07. It's possible for a subset of these to be filled (let's say 400) before the share's price increases from the increased demand. Then, if the price goes above $0.10, your bid will not be filled during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04fd815fdb970c4b4460756c2c98afb4",
"text": "\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df8064640cb8309f77df6ce7ab98bf82",
"text": "I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).",
"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": "ab7c98d8fdb1024d1a43bf37be50d13c",
"text": "The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share. Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares. With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company. You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out. (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c063e04891680356983f8ac3bbade3b6",
"text": "\"Most stock brokers are \"\"full service\"\" brokers. That is to say that you can so the same broker to buy different types of stocks, bonds, options, etc. in different markets. Some brokers are very specialized and won't allow you to do that. But those are probably brokers you don't want to use.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "395657af29d1c2a678d29b213625d460",
"text": "Enjoy the free trades as long as they last, and take advantage of it since this is no longer functionally a tax on your potential profits. On a side note, RobinHood and others in the past have roped customers in with low-to-zero fee trades before changing the business paradigm completely or ceasing operations. All brokers could be charging LESS fees than they do, but they get charged fees by the exchanges, and will eventually pass this down to the customer in some way or go bankrupt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d589182b01015240f2be382c8bbf3cf",
"text": "\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"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": "99bb25d0b743df906c2a541a30c45585",
"text": "It is not your brokerage's responsibility to tell you **what** to buy, whether explicitly, or implicitly through their fee structure. This is **not** an article about Robin Hood. It's an argument condemning all active investing with repeated mostly-irrelevant mentions of Robin Hood as one of the hundreds of entities that makes that possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "456a77712eae11ec6b49bbee70981064",
"text": "Yes, by paying double the amount each month you would have in effect paid the loan off in less than half the time. For $13000 at 3% over 60 months your monthly repayments would be $233.59. If you double your monthly repayments to $467.18 you would end up paying the loan off by the end of the 29th months, more than halving your loan term, as long as there are no penalties for paying the loan off early.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
57ec711a4dbc82eefb3ac5518a326339
|
How do I manage my portfolio as stock evaluation criteria evolve?
|
[
{
"docid": "a09aa71b8d163e2547259a6c2b608fb8",
"text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cca1f388f296720d6f055eea0c36174e",
"text": "If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f5601bc847b9b759754505aebe97c44",
"text": "Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8",
"text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cd26d742c20c768e4ca24448d556523",
"text": "If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2ae3e850c9a05b457725c0e854dd8f8",
"text": "The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "042f9a1692281b7268716120e19011d8",
"text": "There is no magic bullet here. If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note: a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab52113ec7e01f75d7dbf10acd3beb4c",
"text": "\"I'm searching for a master's thesis topic in equity investment or portfolio management and I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what are the hot \"\"trends\"\" going on right now on the market? Any new phenomenons (like the rise of blockchain, etf... but more relate to the equity side) or debates ( the use of the traditional techniques such as Beta to calculate WACC for example ...) ?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b",
"text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6185b178bed99afd98ae1c4d60cc2cee",
"text": "\"Fama-French would be a couple of names if you want to look at this from a value/growth dichotomy. A simplified form of this was to take the stocks with a lower Price/Book Value that would be the value stocks while the others would be the growth. The principle is that some of the beaten-down stocks will appreciate more than the growth stocks will. 6 Ways To Improve Your Portfolio Returns Today also makes note of the \"\"growth vs value\"\" split if you want another reference that way. Historically, growth has been more volatile and produced lower returns, though past performance isn't necessarily always going to hold as some people like to invest in what is known as a \"\"slice & dice\"\" portfolio where a portion in invested in each of 4 corners: Large-growth, large-value, small-growth, and small-value. Some may add in bonds, REITs, and foreign stocks but the idea is that in different years, different parts of the market will do better and this is a way to capture that in a sense.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04",
"text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ef8e8eee6d0af27702fa012c74a352",
"text": "Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1bac2cad9517ca397e51368dd834c77",
"text": "it's kind of like a circular loop: i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner. Thing is, that's also really hard to do. I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains. (a lot) easier said than done",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019",
"text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8",
"text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b386e98ce3c3bcf8ef08709af4f6f7",
"text": "You can evaluate portfolio raw returns or risk adjusted returns. To evaluate raw returns, I would personally compute the total returns over the time period in question for both portfolios. To compute total returns, split the time into a bunch of subperiods by the dates at which you contributed money. Compute each subperiod return by dividing the value of the portfolio at the end of the subperiod (but before adding additional cash on that day) by the value at the beginning of the subperiod (after adding cash on that day). Then multiply all these returns together. Finally, subtract 1. That's your total return. For the portfolio where you didn't add any money it's easy: just divide the end value by the beginning and subtract 1. Whichever has a higher return performed better. To compute risk adjusted returns, get the portfolio returns from both portfolios (daily or monthly) and use OLS to regress on a benchmark portfolio return (something like the S&P500). The intercept of the regression is a measure of the risk-adjusted peformance of your portfolio. Higher the better. More sophisticated models will do multiple regression using a few benchmark portfolios at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ebd6d33c87dc7f7dd4620a6ab19a647",
"text": "Ask yourself a better question: Under my current investment criteria would I buy the stock at this price? If the answer to that question is yes you need to work out at what price you would now sell out of the position. Think of these as totally separate decisions from your original decisions to buy and at what price to sell. If you would buy the stock now if you didn't already hold a position then you should keep that position as if you had sold out at the price that you had originally seen as your take profit level and bought a new position at the current price without incurring the costs. If you would not buy now by those criteria then you should sell out as planned. This is essentially netting off two investing decisions. Something to think about is that the world has changed and if you knew what you know now then you would probably have set your price limit higher. To be disciplined as an investor also means reviewing current positions frequently and without any sympathy for past decisions.",
"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
|
2adf442273a8317fa9beacc2549f3b4c
|
Howto choose a marketplace while submitting an order for a stock trade
|
[
{
"docid": "80b1b71e85c9750a58d2fe8403945c6a",
"text": "It depends on your cost structure and knowledge of the exchanges. It could be optimal to make a manual exchange selection so long as it's cheaper to do so. For brokers with trade fees, this is a lost cause because the cost of the trade is already so high that auto routing will be no cheaper than manual routing. For brokers who charge extra to manually route, this could be a good policy if the exchange chosen has very high rebates. This does not apply to equities because they are so cheap, but there are still a few expensive option exchanges. This all presumes that one's broker shares exchange rebates which nearly all do not. If one has direct access to the exchanges, they are presumably doing this already. To do this effectively, one needs: For anyone trading with brokers without shared rebates or who does not have knowledge of the exchange prices and their liquidities, it's best to auto route.",
"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": "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": "aa21801465ae1bf32423aa5e02ee8e53",
"text": "I am able to place an 'all or none' order with my broker. But doing so reduces the number of potential sources to fulfill the order. As others have mentioned, try a limit order to get a specific price.",
"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": "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": "afeaf1c9e6a8ed09de010bbaaea0a2f0",
"text": "I don't have all the answers. On a illiquid stock, such situations do arise and there are specific mechanisms used by exchanges to match the order. It is generally not advisable to use market order on illiquid stock. There are lots of different variations here. I guess this comes down to specifications for individual exchanges, but I'm wondering if there's a standard here or a way to approach it from basic rules that clears up all these situations. There are quite a few variations and different treatments. Market order that are placed when the market is closed or just around market opening are traded at Market Open price that each exchange has a formulae to calculate. In the process Market Buy are matched to Market Sell at the Exchange calculated price. Not all order get matched and there could be spill over's. These are then matched to limit orders. Is this determined based on which sell order came first, or based on which would result in the best deal for the incoming buyer? Generally Market orders have highest priority of execution.",
"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": "d6614c80a1bfd3d9994c53dd2e02b2ba",
"text": "Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ffe50c45e8063c3225e35c4091f31b7",
"text": "\"As mentioned in other answers, you find out by reading the Rulebook for that commodity and exchange. I'll quote a couple of random passages to show how they vary: For CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Random Length Lumber Futures, the delivery is ornate: Seller shall give his Notice of Intent to Deliver to the Clearing House prior to 12:00 noon (on any Business Day after termination of trading in the contract month. 20103.D. Seller's Duties If the buyer's designated destination is east of the western boundaries of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, and the western boundary of Manitoba, Canada, the seller shall follow the buyer's shipping instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. In addition, the seller shall prepay the actual freight charges and bill the buyer, through the Clearing House, the lowest published freight rate for 73-foot railcars from Prince George, British Columbia to the buyer's destination. If the lowest published freight rate from Prince George, British Columbia to buyer's destination is a rate per one hundred pounds, the seller shall bill the buyer on the weight basis of 1,650 pounds per thousand board feet. The term \"\"lowest published freight rate\"\" refers only to the lowest published \"\"general through rate\"\" and not to rates published in any other rate class. If, however, the buyer’s destination is outside of the aforementioned area, the seller shall follow the same procedures except that the seller shall have the right to change the point of origin and/or originating carrier within 2 Business Days after receipt of buyer’s original shipping instructions. If a change of origin and/or originating carrier is made, the seller shall then follow the buyer's revised instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. If the freight rate to the buyer's destination is not published, the freight charge shall be negotiated between the buyer and seller in accordance with industry practice. Any additional freight charges resulting from diversion by the buyer in excess of the actual charges for shipment to the destination specified in the shipping instructions submitted to the Clearing House are the responsibility of the buyer. Any reduction in freight charges that may result from a diversion is not subject to billing adjustment through the Clearing House. Any applicable surcharges noted by the rail carrier shall be considered as part of the freight rate and can be billed to the buyer through the CME Clearing House. If within two (2) Business Days of the receipt of the Notice of Intent the buyer has not designated a destination, or if during that time the buyer and seller fail to agree on a negotiated freight charge, the seller shall treat the destination as Chicago, Illinois. If the buyer does not designate a carrier or routing, the seller shall select same according to normal trade practices. To complete delivery, the seller must deposit with the Clearing House a Delivery Notice, a uniform straight bill of lading (or a copy thereof) and written information specifying grade, a tally of pieces of each length, board feet by sizes and total board feet. The foregoing documents must be received by the Clearing House postmarked within fourteen (14) Business Days of the date of receipt of shipping instructions. In addition, within one (1) Business Day after acceptance by the railroad, the Clearing House must receive information (via a telephone call, facsimile or electronic transmission) from the seller giving the car number, piece count by length, unit size, total board footage and date of acceptance. The date of acceptance by the railroad is the date of the bill of lading, signed and/or stamped by the originating carrier, except when determined otherwise by the Clearing House. For some commodities you can't get physical delivery (for instance, Cheese futures won't deliver piles of cheese to your door, for reasons that may be obvious) 6003.A. Final Settlement There shall be no delivery of cheese in settlement of this contract. All contracts open as of the termination of trading shall be cash settled based upon the USDA monthly weighted average price in the U.S. for cheese. The reported USDA monthly weighted average price for cheese uses both 40 pound cheddar block and 500 pound barrel prices. CME gold futures will deliver to a licensed depository, so you would have to arrange for delivery from the depository (they'll issue you a warrant), assuming you really want a 100 troy oz. bar of gold: CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS The contract for delivery on futures contracts shall be one hundred (100) troy ounces of gold with a weight tolerance of 5% either higher or lower. Gold delivered under this contract shall assay to a minimum of 995 fineness and must be a brand approved by the Exchange. Gold meeting all of the following specifications shall be deliverable in satisfaction of futures contract delivery obligations under this rule: Either one (1) 100 troy ounce bar, or three (3) one (1) kilo bars. Gold must consist of one or more of the Exchange’s Brand marks, as provided in Chapter 7, current at the date of the delivery of contract. Each bar of Eligible gold must have the weight, fineness, bar number, and brand mark clearly incised on the bar. The weight may be in troy ounces or grams. If the weight is in grams, it must be converted to troy ounces for documentation purposes by dividing the weight in grams by 31.1035 and rounding to the nearest one hundredth of a troy ounce. All documentation must illustrate the weight in troy ounces. Each Warrant issued by a Depository shall reference the serial number and name of the Producer of each bar. Each assay certificate issued by an Assayer shall certify that each bar of gold in the lot assays no less than 995 fineness and weight of each bar and the name of the Producer that produced each bar. Gold must be delivered to a Depository by a Carrier as follows: a. directly from a Producer; b. directly from an Assayer, provided that such gold is accompanied by an assay certificate of such Assayer; or c. directly from another Depository; provided, that such gold was placed in such other Depository pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3806ced71d2e8fcf8b5645ceb665f31a",
"text": "My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbfd3a478090786ec45cb3ec593c10c",
"text": "\"There are a number of choices: I prefer Dilip's response \"\"Have you tried asking etrade?\"\" No offense, but questions about how a particular broker handles certain situations are best asked of the broker. Last - one should never enter into any trade (especially options trades) without understanding the process in advance. I hope you are asking this before trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5775fcd5beb1fd715c83430a9b72b75a",
"text": "\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead6668f545edc1571a0f451473116e4",
"text": "\"Market orders do not get priority over limit orders. Time is the only factor that matters in price/time order matching when the order price is the same. For example, suppose the current best available offer for AAPL is $100.01 and the best available bid is $100.00. Now a limit buy for $100.01 and a market buy arrive at around the same instant. The matching engine can only receive one order at a time, no matter how close together they arrive. Let's say that by chance the limit buy arrives first. The engine will check if there's a matching sell at $100.01 and indeed there is and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the market buy. Then it moves on to the market buy and processes it accordingly. On the other hand, let's say that by chance the market buy arrives first. The engine will match it with the best available sell (at $100.01) and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the limit buy. Then it moves on to the limit buy and processes it accordingly. So there's never a comparison between the two orders or their \"\"priorities\"\" because they never exist in the system at the same time. The first one to arrive is processed first; the second one to arrive is processed second.\"",
"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": "373870f36e0e786e2363317fec02a8a8",
"text": "In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
356f804d71b55176409e4ed31ab9363b
|
What are the most efficient ways to bet on an individual stock beating the market?
|
[
{
"docid": "696626a80aa6564d93793bdd82b0e116",
"text": "tl;dr: Unfortunately, there is little available to the retail investor that fits your description. Institutional investors can use swaps to gain leverage on the above trade. A bank will build a basket of long MSFT and short SPY and then quote a rate against LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) and a margin requirement. So at the end of the swap the bank will pay the difference in total return between MSFT and SPY and the investor will pay some amount of cash back. The nice thing for the investor is that the margin requirement will often be fairly small if their credit is good so the investor can lever the trade up significantly. A retail investor could call up your broker and try to get the above but on the off chance they let you the margin requirement might be higher than just going short the SPY. If you aren't a retail investor, you might be able to do something like be long a 3X tech ETF and short 3X SPY ETF. If you are very clever you might be able to combine multiple levered tech ETFs to get something like 3X MSFT. However, I would strongly caution against levered etfs for most retail investors as the fees are high and levered etfs tend to strongly drift away from the index against the investor over anything but the shortest time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a19279ffae2f4db056a53ee0f972eae",
"text": "\"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cf6b36c499fd17302193308d6f882be8",
"text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b120328813deca9d848fd3cb63a1698",
"text": "\"The technical term for it is \"\"timing the market\"\" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are \"\"buying low\"\" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9db074300286d221cb46c23d027e479",
"text": "If you're willing to take on higher risk than a corporate investor (you have to be) and you are smart it's way easier to operate as an individual. Your position/strategy is SO much easier to execute just simply based on trade size, you have relatively no overhead. You won't impact the market at all which is where a heavy hitter might have an advantage, other than that you are in a better position in terms of return vs investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948d14eeab77d845ae1466625081fe48",
"text": "By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc65bbb1614f209f9f526eccf3e7119",
"text": "\"The term you're looking for is yield (though it's defined the other way around from your \"\"payout efficiency\"\", as dividend / share price, which makes no substantive difference). You're simply saying that you want to buy high-yield shares, which is a common investment strategy. But you have to consider that often a high-yielding share has a reason for the high yield. You probably don't want to buy shares in a company whose current yield is 10% but will go into liquidation next year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e",
"text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb4fd780184d18c4282487bb78fa2be",
"text": "You can do some very crafty hedging with the variety of options. For instance, deep out of the money options are affected more by changes of market volatility, knowing this you can get long or short vega very easily, as opposed to necessarily betting on changes in the underlying asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0b25899dfe8a0d7965310d6cfc769b",
"text": "Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a better one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "20a7eb90fb4fb80f4664b2eeed2ac630",
"text": "First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks? I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly. This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers. Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this). If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up. Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price. This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2faa57a75bcfd515df2e8d966c4416e",
"text": "In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "317fdf0e949f3e98c8a3d0b63e256340",
"text": "I was referring to insider information as a seperate means of profiting. So I assumed: 1. Fundamental analysis/picking the direction 2. Insider information 3. Gaming the market (illiquid markets) If this is true. What makes a good market maker? Stoploss/takeprofit management and hope there are enough players in it *not* to win it (i.e. hedge positions) to take profit from? Sounds very luck base or is there something im missing? Thanks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e81649d79e7300c054869a3979bacd1",
"text": "One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b9ba39d8bd922467184f7175b7173245
|
How to Calculate Profit and Loss for trading position?
|
[
{
"docid": "af1e7597d17b0a48cccebd7e7c4c402a",
"text": "\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bbc49c2f1936608bbed3759d5fdec2dd",
"text": "Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (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": "1fb94e8d47ea5630d5154ec36535c97f",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e302b03f30b9eddbdda22282b45ba6e9",
"text": "Not directly an answer to your question, but somewhat related: There are derivatives (whose English name I sadly don't know) that allow to profit from breaking through an upper or alternatively a lower barrier. If the trade range does not hit either barrier you lose. This kind of derivative is useful if you expect a strong movement in either direction, which typically occurs at high volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a4bbdf656a4b0e349eb5bf63dd1e6d",
"text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "493304a22f28af6cb8a83c6a35984166",
"text": "You would appear to be a swing trader, like myself. I have been trading futures and futures options for 29 years, and have both made and lost a lot of money in that time. My trades last hours, to days, to at most a few weeks. From my experience, the most important skills are: 1) Money management - keeping trade size small in relation to total capital. I typically risk 2-3% of my capital on a trade, so a loss is fairly immaterial. 2) Risk management - limit your loss on every trade, either by using stop orders, options, or a combination of these 2. 3) Emotional discipline - be prepared to exit a position, or reverse from long to short, or short to long, on a moment's notice. The market doesn't care where you entered, or whether you make or lose money. Don't let your hunches or the news influence your decisions, but follow the market. 4) Methodology discipline - test your analysis / trade entry method to ensure that it is objective, and has a reasonably good probability of success, then stick with it. Variation will inevitably lead to indecision or emotional reactions. 5) Flexibility - consider trading anything which can make you a profit, but ensure that there is a lot of liquidity. I trade 30 different futures markets, as well as various option writing strategies in these markets. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss further. I have about 500 (yes, 500) trading e-books as well, on every trading subject you can think of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea1540671e85c547c40d496a04afd912",
"text": "\"The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price. The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a \"\"naked put write\"\" position, having sold a put option. The strike price of the put is marked as \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold. This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry. If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be \"\"in the money\"\". Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry. This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the \"\"A\"\" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis. The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to \"\"A\"\" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero. In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of \"\"B\"\" and purchase a put option with a strike price \"\"A\"\", where A is less than B. Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis. This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price. Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price \"\"A\"\" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of \"\"A\"\" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of \"\"A\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b04f790ab2bc20075ad02ef249001c1e",
"text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "e2e802dff593d3d9738f73690dc04ebc",
"text": "\"I would suggest you forget everything you learned in economics. The only applicable knowledge is Accounting 101. Step 1: An accrual basis financial statement. There is no step 2 if you don't do this. Most small business do everything cash basis. Simpler, cheaper but useless for analysis. You would get better answers from the local fortune teller than a cash basis statement. Make one change from the general rules. If you have debt or are paying interest for inventory include that in your cost of sales. This is actually proper but the rule is little known and often ignored. Interest on debt up to the amount of inventory is a cost of inventory. Step 2: Gross profit. If you seem to be working hard and still losing money it may be because you are selling products for less than they cost you. In this case the more you sell the more you lose. So suggestions like advertising or doing anything to increase sales are actually destructive. Step 3 Price products at the level necessary to turn a profit at current sales and overhead. 'When we have enough sales we will make a profit\"\" is the philosophy of a start up business. It is toxic for a going concern. Step 4 If sales are unsustainable at the price that produces a profit have the courage to sell or close the business. I have seen people waste their lives on futile endeavors just because they can't make that tough decision. Finally Step 0: Ignore all other suggestions but this. They are well meaning but ill informed. To reiterate, growing sales while losing money on every transaction is a huge mistake. Trends, books, charts and graphs, analytics and market research are the tools of con-men and fortune tellers. Business is arithmetic and nothing more or less. FYI if I don't get at least one upvote, this is the last time I am giving my valuable professional advice away for free on reddit. Folks will have to rely on the suggestions of their fellow college kids.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb",
"text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e8a4a5b4b7325c288798c4cb372f33",
"text": "If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4af13688937e441ad07c8be39e1109",
"text": "So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience. I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth. The underlying went up and never came back. I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option. After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy: seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8a2e37b9d00688dcd06501850dc8efbf
|
How to decide on limits when purchasing/selling stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "d76148a24e5fe75e50c2a979fd8b7cd9",
"text": "\"You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund. But then you asked about setting stock limits. I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or sell a stock at the current market price. A limit order is an order to buy or sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order. A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line. If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price). If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares, you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares. Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified). This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price). If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order. You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker \"\"I will only buy this stock at this price or better.\"\" p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste. It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "918e6778d512aaca7c4e49d5715759e1",
"text": "Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above. If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecf39246158293d3d1fb46cfd64757d9",
"text": "if I put a limit sell at $22.00 now, will it not sell until it's at $22.00 and I will continue to keep the stock? Basically yes. But note that brokers generally don't allow such limit orders to persist indefinitely. The default may even be that they're only valid until the end of the day, and usually the maximum validity is 30 or 60 days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5afd299ba0f851cc7ba75aac7621c3",
"text": "Honestly? The maximum number really doesn't matter. If you're investing long-term, you buy in when it looks like an OK deal (still undervalued but looks like it'll grow), and you sell when it looks like the stock has reached a peak it won't reach again for a while if ever. However many stocks you can keep track of on those kinds of terms is how many stocks should be in your portfolio.",
"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": "9a0574b1f4c64467251aa44803c3685e",
"text": "If you want your order to go through no matter what then you should be using market orders rather than limit orders. With limit orders you may get the price you are after or better but you are not guaranteed to get your order transacted. With a market order you are guaranteed to get you order transacted but may get a price inferior to what you were after. Most times this should only be a few cents but can get much larger in a fast moving or less liquid market. You should incorporate this slippage into your trading plan. Maybe a better option for you, if you are looking at + or - 0.5% from the last price, would be to use conditional triggers (stop buy and sell orders) with your market orders. Once the market moves in your direction your conditional order will be triggered and the stock will be bought at current market price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a09aa71b8d163e2547259a6c2b608fb8",
"text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b8a316de1395303b95c0c860191c913",
"text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cce3a29cfc98b1f105ad4f548111501d",
"text": "\"You answered your own question \"\"whether someone buys is a different thing\"\". You can ask any price that you want. (Or given an electronic brokerage, you can enter the highest value that the system was designed to accept.) The market (demand) will determine whether anyone will buy at the price you are asking. A better strategy if you want to make an unreasonable amount of money is to put in a buy order at an unreasonably low price and hope a glitch causes a flash crash and allows you to purchase at that price. There may be rules that unravel your purchase after the fact, but it has a better chance of succeeding than trying to sell at an unreasonably high price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e40085d2a0da4b760a5a1930c4a79386",
"text": "If the price has gone up from what it was when the person bought, he may sell to collect his profit and spend the money. If someone intends to keep his money in the market, the trick is that you don't know when the price of a given stock will peak. If you could tell the future, sure, you'd buy when the stock was at its lowest point, just before it started up, and then sell at the highest point, just before it started down. But no one knows for sure what those points are. If a stockholder really KNOWS that demand is increasing and the price WILL go up, sure, it would be foolish to sell. But you can never KNOW that. (Or if you have some way that you do know that, please call me and share your knowledge.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "651f98220897b2a34830fade5ce229dc",
"text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea50bac643f16c661a5f92a666659a4",
"text": "The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91905e7dd0db565ab6290e0982aafa35",
"text": "I assume you're talking about a sell order, not a buy order. When you place a limit sell order, your order is guaranteed to be placed at that price or higher. If the market is currently trading much higher than the price of your sell order, then your mistakenly low limit order will be essentially a market order, and will be filled at the current bid price. So the only way this is a problem is if you want to place a limit sell that is much higher than the current market, but mistakenly place a limit lower than the current market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7818ae9d9068f5953344459e340be74",
"text": "\"In a way yes but I doubt you'd want that. A \"\"Stop-Limit\"\" order has both stop and limit components to it but I doubt this gives you what you want. In your example, if the stock falls to $1/share then the limit order of $3/share would be triggered but this isn't quite what I'd think you'd want to see. I'd suggest considering having 2 orders: A stop order to limit losses and a limit order to sell that are separate rather than fusing them together that likely isn't going to work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d96eada018190b559af05e3c817086ae",
"text": "Consider the case where a stock has low volume. If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares. Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dca2e519c440ad97edc1473cbb806d5",
"text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54c8a0af9b8f635a0b1f73ac25c33679
|
Is there a simple strategy of selling stock over a period of time?
|
[
{
"docid": "d5e71508fdf5bcc1d535cac18c15e692",
"text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc2d05be57fa75e2a062ec74803bc1d3",
"text": "Yes, there is an analogous strategy for selling: it's to sell a fixed number of shares per period of time.",
"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": "70f92e1cbd5319e81153759253123fba",
"text": "Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.",
"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": "2fec6683380e14b8eb39ce4db93a54db",
"text": "A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.",
"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": "3f9e5de579b5f93a6f62a45d4bce105d",
"text": "\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"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": "56e12ee55d82f3f3afee28cd783dcf28",
"text": "\"By definition, there are no guaranteed profits. There are sometimes arbitrage opportunities, which are more accessible to some investors than others. In this case, I'm not referring to HFT as that is covered elsewhere on this site already. At certain times, in certain equity markets, candlestick charts were used for profitable trading, though more for trades set up for weeks or months, not day trading. I am referring specifically to Nikkei 225 equities, in the 1980's and 1990's. I don't know why it was effective, and it hasn't worked for me since then. I recommend reading and heeding this answer. Some people DO use technical analysis (see \"\"TA is not...\"\" section) as a primary trading strategy, but they are not going to divulge their methods, not here nor anywhere else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a5353cdeaaab9284846af6cae9b25d5",
"text": "Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit? Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today. You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars). So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell). What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea. You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years. How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b8a316de1395303b95c0c860191c913",
"text": "High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e29195a125f800f05e4931e59d0e7e93",
"text": "\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c600e5d7c6579a79832cc6565ae570f",
"text": "\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "890ebd558615ec24ba3165200de6ee83",
"text": "\"I've traded covered calls now and then. This is a recent trade. Bought 1000 shares of RSH (Radio Shack) and sold 10 calls. So, I own the stock at a cost of $6.05, but have to let it go for $7.50. There's a 50c dividend in November, so the call buyer will call it away even if the stock trades below the strike. So, I'm expecting this is a 10 month trade for a 24% return. This is one strategy where options clearly take down the risk (of course, I did not say 'remove', just lessens). The stock can be 10% lower a year out, and I'm still ahead by 8% plus the dividend if it's not canceled. Note - it's a rare case for a one year trade to return 20% or more at a flat stock price. More common is 10-12%. (I hope this example is acceptable as an example of this type of trade. If not, I can edit to \"\"XYZ corp\"\" to remove the stock name. (So if anyone comments, please do not repeat name in case I need to remove)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea68051a47397fbfbec442760e9d67fa",
"text": "I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
39f2af00aa13a33d900585e57ce81e75
|
How to calculate stock price (value) based on given values for equity and debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5a95d65477663dfcf01e2ed5e2fbee3",
"text": "There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1f8e1e935ad365e016e2e6468cf4797",
"text": "Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94f4b7578a2b59e3af58c13213b7da6b",
"text": "I'll give you my quick and dirty way to value a company: A quick and dirty valuation could be: equity + 10 times profit. This quick way protects you from investing in companies in debt, or losing money. To go more in-depth you need to assess future profit, etc. I recommend the book from Mary Buffett about Warren Buffett's investing style.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc",
"text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174e7774435b2f45ec3b37e9755dac8b",
"text": "Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cea619996598815d7b5c3f25476352",
"text": "If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks. One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate. I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94",
"text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8272dc25995314578ce4b67916ebc6f",
"text": "\"The basic equation taught in day one of accounting school is that Assets = Liabilities + Equity. My first point was that I looked at the actual financial statements published as of the end of the 2nd quarter 2017, and the total liabilities on their audited balance sheet were like $13 billion, not $20b. I don't know where the author got their numbers from. My second point: Debt usually needs to be paid on prearranged terms agreed upon by the debtor and the debtee, including interest, so it is important for a business to keep track of what they owe and to whom, so they can make timely payments. As long as they have the cash on hand to make payments plus whatever interest they owe, and the owners are happy with the total return on their investment, then it doesn't really matter how debt they have on the balance sheet. Remember the equation A=L+E. There are precisely two ways to finance a business that wants to acquire assets: liabilities and/or equity. The \"\"appropriate\"\" level of debt vs equity on a balance sheet varies wildly, and totally depends on the industry, size of the business, cash flow, personal preferences of the CEO, CFO, shareholders et al, etc. It gets way more detailed and complicated than that obviously, but the point is that looking at debt alone is a meaningless metric. This is corporate finance and accounting 101, so you can probably find tons of great articles and videos if you want to learn more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03012414b99a9299647d1deae6efedac",
"text": "Are you trying to figure out if a project would increase the market value of equity? I think your issue is that the Market value of Equity will not be updated with the NPV of 40M (Assuming it is truly +, not sure if it's true with 50M of debt). EV = Market Value of Equity + Debt - Cash and CE Ev - Debt + Cash and CE = Market equity value. So I think you would have to update the market value of Equity up with 40M. This would then lead to EV = Equity Value + future income stream discounted + debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00135dcac4fb6133749e18b232752e96",
"text": "you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "924ec97e56ea4c56464f722c7914e103",
"text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bca5b955ad21c09521f36d07d7b490dd",
"text": "Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples.",
"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": "f63cceb091fed668aefa3680076af07f",
"text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7617e14cd3d865fab29e1444486990d8",
"text": "Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b996e352bd15885b1fe99402e082c5d",
"text": "Maybe one of my issues is that I have a 5 year model with a terminal value. The repayment of debt principal is outside this time frame so I don't assume any repayment. If you're valuing a company share price though you don't model all debt repayments.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0e53d1e4d10dfeca5dc75cb48dbdf50a
|
Can the purchaser of a stock call option cancel the contract?
|
[
{
"docid": "0de9e9a762696f6dba56fbf83b75a153",
"text": "You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it. You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement. Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy. You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15. Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case.",
"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": "52482dae48072ad10b895c7d83e2fe03",
"text": "Offers usually have an expiration deadline. As long as the signed offer is returned by the seller to the potential buyer before the expiration - it is a valid contract. The fact that the seller countered and his counter-offer wasn't accepted is irrelevant. The buyer can void the offer, as long as it is not yet accepted, by notifying the seller in writing that the offer is null and void. I'm not a lawyer, you should ask your real-estate attorney to be sure, but that is my understanding of the contract law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b",
"text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a203f2dd83dd52905325f019f1be42",
"text": "The product itself is a derivative as it derives its value from another stock or commodity. It's similar to a US option, which offers (in the case of a 'call') the right, but not the obligation to buy a stock at a predetermined price before a certain date. But, unlike the US option, instead of buying the stock, the contract is only closed out in cash. I've made the analogy to betting, so I believe it to be a fair comparison. I hope this question is theoretical. You should never buy a financial instrument with no clue how it works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd5ff5c2df4893c413d262d9372f25b",
"text": "The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it. Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook. By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00 They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone. How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders. They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138081ec8dc672510864b024303858ca",
"text": "Whilst it is true that they do not have a conference call every time a rating is produced, the parameters of a natural oligopoly do indicate that there are negative effects of deviating too much from the other members of an oligopoly. There are instances of rating agencies (Moody's) giving lower ratings to punish the issuer for going elsewhere (Re Hannover), but usually a slightly lower rating may be acceptable and is usually corrected to be in line with the competitor shortly afterwards. The power, arguably, is with the issuer in this sense because they can take their business to the 3rd member (Fitch) if the rating is too low from one of the Big Two. The preservation of the 'Big Two', for so long, is arguably testament to the S&P and Moody's understanding of these parameters If the answer is not micromanaging, what do you think it is out of interest?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3681fe7e8e5344a3021f0058d20ec485",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f37bc6af67f10fac5bbeda9a07bc0d",
"text": "\"Institutions and market makers tend to try and stay delta neutral, meaning that for every options contract they buy or write, they buy or sell the equivalent underlying asset. This, as a theory, is called max pain, which is more of an observation of this behavior by retail investors. This as a reality is called delta hedging done by market makers and institutional investors. The phenomenom is that many times a stock gets pinned to a very even number at a particular price on options expiration days (like 500.01 or 499.99 by closing bell). At options expiration dates, many options contracts are being closed (instutitions and market makers are typically on the other side of those trades, to keep liquidity), so for every one standard 100 share contract the market maker wrote, they bought 100 shares of the underlying asset, to remain delta neutral. When the contract closes (or get rid of the option) they sell that 100 shares of the underlying asset. At mass volume of options traded, this would cause noticeable downward pressure, similarly for other trades it would cause upward pressure as institutions close their short positions against options they had bought. The result is a pinned stock right above or below an expiration that previously had a lot of open interest. This tends to happen in more liquid stocks, than less liquid ones, to answer that question. As they have more options series and more strike prices. No, this would not be illegal, in the US attempting to \"\"mark the close\"\" is supposedly prohibited but this wouldn't count as it, the effect of derivatives on stock prices is far beyond the SEC's current enforcement regime :) although an active area of research\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f4a10f6ba6b9152bcc8482f72f0fdc1",
"text": "Market makers are required to buy options contracts as a condition of being a market maker. It is what keeps the markets functioning and liquid. As to whether or not your trade can be closed at a profit depends on many variables - how much you paid, what the underlying security is, etc CBOE Options expiration FAQs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e77db7e9fa33441623e940265591ae1",
"text": "\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b40cfde36c298fa85ed57128325b279",
"text": "Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing. But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2021896ab5fde00bf401811c12b52f10",
"text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9627f82260bb39df76ebc5d187e383",
"text": "according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6c17333231952678c6616eaf362e9f",
"text": "If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "349b92f5e4a552cdcde2ec09d38be938",
"text": "The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742316b384830a9f67b1074484b927cb",
"text": "The answer to your question as asked is no. Call options, even those issued by the company, cannot create new shares unless they are employee stock options. Company-issued warrants, on the other hand, can create new shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
829cb86e15a9a6e6c1b438e71b428337
|
For what dates are the NYSE and U.S. stock exchanges typically closed?
|
[
{
"docid": "f74107c60db39d730e328f977ebdf010",
"text": "The NYSE publishes a list of holidays at its website. New link: https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars Old link in the original answer that doesn't work now: http://www.nyse.com/about/newsevents/1176373643795.html Hope that helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4987bb0da86c46f6b8b5e7fefc77df9",
"text": "Stumbled upon this question, I've found the updated dates for 2016 and 2017 in a more permanent location. https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84eab1cccef725a0fed082edc3bf44f6",
"text": "\"All public US equity exchanges are closed on the 9 US trading holidays (see below) and open on all other days. Exchanges also close early (13:00 ET) on the Friday after Thanksgiving and on the day before Independence Day if Independence Day is being observed on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. (Some venues have extended trading hours as a matter of course; for them an \"\"early close\"\" might be later than 13:00 ET.) To answer the second question, yes, if you know NASDAQ's or AMEX's holiday schedule, then you know NYSE's (modulo the timing of their early close). I'm not sure about the options exchanges; they're not regulated the same way and are a good example of exchanges with extended trading hours in the first place. The US trading holidays are as follows. Note that trading holidays are not the same as federal or bank holidays, which include Columbus Day and Veterans Day but do not include Good Friday.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "31e6bf09f431ab5959949c087591b78b",
"text": "Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc378b948cee79cb0c04d4cec76667f",
"text": "The NYSE is not the only exchange in the world (or even the only one in the USA). Amazingly, the London stock exchange works on London time, the Shanghai exchange works on Shanghai time and the Australian stock exchange works on Sydney time. In addition futures exchanges work overnight.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370bf01afd80672f58b7757144ca2871",
"text": "There are several reasons why this may happen and I will update as I get more information from you. Volumes on that stock look low (supposing that they are either in a factor between 1s and 1000s) so it could well be that there was no volume on that day. If no trades occur then open, high and low are meaningless as they are statistics based on trades that occur that day and no trades occur. Remember that there has to be volume to get a price. The stock may have been frozen by either the exchange or the company for the day. This could be for various reasons including to prevent some illegal activity. In that case no trades were made because the market for that stock was closed. Another possibility is that all trades that day were cancelled by the exchange. The exchange may cancel all trades if there is unusual, potentially fraudulent or other illegal activity on the stock. In this case the last price for that day existed but was rolled back by the exchange and never occurred. This is a rare situation. Although I can't find any holidays on that date it is possible that this is how your data provider marks market holidays. It would be valid to ignore the data in that case as being from a non-market day. I cannot tell if this is possible without knowing exchange information. There is a possibility that some data providers don't receive data for a day or that it gets corrupted. It may be worth checking another source to ensure the integrity of the data that you are receiving. Whichever reason is true, the data provider has made the close equal to the previous day's close as no price movements occurred. Strictly the closing price is the price of the last trade made for that day and so should be null (and open, high and low should be null too and not 0 otherwise the price change on day is very large!). Therefore, to keep integrity, you have a few choices:",
"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": "9e23f734f751b12c8348d91beaac1cbf",
"text": "\"The third Friday of each month is an expiration for the monthly options on each stock. Stock with standardized options are in one of three \"\"cycles\"\" and have four open months at any give time. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/optioncycle.asp In addition some stocks have weekly options now. Those generally have less interest because they are necessarily short-term. Anything expiring on April 8 and 22 (Fridays this year but not third Fridays of the month) are weeklies. The monthly options are open for longer periods of time so they attract more interest over the time that they are open. They also potentially attract a different type of investor due to their length of term, although, as it gets close to their expiration date they may start to behave more like weeklies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42e6c151f76413441c383a8aaf9f510f",
"text": "Your order may or may not be executed. The price of stock can open anywhere. Often yesterday's close is a good indication of today's open, but with a big event overnight, the open may be somewhere quite different. You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us. Also, even if it doesn't execute at the open, the price could vary during the day and it might execute later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eb46f83af68ff1662f9f0da145e39fe",
"text": "Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"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": "1fd9eff2faeeb0d51d749525ca2d2c11",
"text": "What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading. Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country.",
"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": "e2745d7a797d99a0b61f8636ccaacd94",
"text": "One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8c371e758fe5e0eb141b70578ba7536",
"text": "\"You cannot determine this solely by the ticker length. However, there are some conventions that may help steer you there. Nasdaq has 2-4 base letters BATS has 4 base letters NYSE equity securities have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Mkt (formerly Amex) have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Arca has 4 base letters OTC has 4 base letters. Security types other than equities may have additional letters added, and each exchange (and data vendors) have different conventions for how this is handled. So if you see \"\"T\"\" for a US-listed security it would be only be either NASDAQ, NYSE or NYSE Mkt. If you see \"\"ANET\"\" then you cannot tell which exchange it is listed on. (In this case, ANET Arista Networks is actually a NYSE stock). For some non-equity security types, such as hybrids, and debt instruments, some exchanges add \"\"P\"\" to the end for \"\"preferreds\"\" (Nasdaq and OTC) and NYSE/NYSE Mkt have a variety of methods (including not adding anything) to the ticker. Examples include NYSE:TFG, NYSEMkt:IPB, Nasdaaq: AGNCP, Nasdaq:OXLCN. It all becomes rather confusing given the changes in conventions over the years. Essentially, you require data that provides you with ticker, listing location and security type. The exchanges allocate security tickers in conjunction with the SEC so there are no overlaps. eg. The same ticker cannot represent two different securities. However, tickers can be re-used. For example, the ticker AB has been used by the following companies:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8ebeab922a88a6568179e1480ad73d",
"text": "\"Prices reflect all available information. (Efficient markets hypothesis) A lot can happen between the time a stock closes on one day and opens on another. Particularly in a heavily traded stock such as IBM. Basically, you have a different \"\"information set\"\" the following day, which implies a different price. The instances where you are most likely to have a stock where the price opens at the same price is at the previous close is a thinly traded stock on which you have little information, meaning that the \"\"information set\"\" changes less from day to day.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e365b99a0855ac8c9e8a2098812503",
"text": "For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92d9df44be54002d4c57fe347394f12a
|
Company A is buying company B, what happens to the stock?
|
[
{
"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": "61a6f11ae6c1166c8c224750b01862e4",
"text": "I think the correct statement is that Expedia wants to buy Orbitz for $12/share. The market price is $11, which means there is somebody willing to sell for that price. But you can't say that a stock price of $11 means that everybody is willing to sell for that price. And Expedia is unlikely to bid $12/share for just 40% of Orbitz shares; they'll want at least a controlling majority.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d72dc32aae29c0d106cd27b4f1755d9",
"text": "\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \"\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\"\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b690c669a900ba8cb6e625b06c76349b",
"text": "I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687295a40647872b6b45f2cac9b45173",
"text": "\"Going private does not mean that the company buys its own shares, only that the freely traded shares are bought up by a private entity (this can be management => \"\"management buy-out\"\" or it can be a private investor). The stock is then not traded publicly and the company gets rid of a whole slew of compliance obligations. In your stated example the company would essentially convert all its stock to treasury stock, which does not pay dividends and has no voting rights. From what I gather from some googling this would actually imply that the company would liquidate itself since it now has no capital anymore. Not sure on this though, an accountant might be able to help here...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07e9ba160f7d41c687da37d2a78030c8",
"text": "You need to be clear about who gets your money: If you pay the existing owner $25K and (s)he gives you half the business, then you now own half of a $50K business an the original owner has an extra $25K in spending cash. The value of the business has not changed. If you contribute $25 to the company, new equity shares are created. Shares should be priced correctly, meaning you now own $25K worth of shares in a company worth $75k, so you should have 1/3 of the outstanding shares (counting both old and new shares). If you get more or less than this, then the transaction has happened in an unfair way. If this is a public company, that would most likely be illegal and the SEC may throw you in jail. If it was a private company and your friend created enough shares that you own half the company, then (s)he has given you a gift. If you are contributing to the company at a fair price, you would need to contribute $50K in order to end up with half the equity of the new and now more valuable firm. In that case the firm would be worth $100K after your contribution. Bottom line, this is a common and not complex transaction and should end up with a completely fair outcome. Any unfair situation you can imagine is probably based on false assumptions or a situation where a non-arms-length transaction is transferring wealth contrary to normal rules and procedures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb0cac0d208e135a6d883966e28ae2a1",
"text": "Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it is similar to changing a 100$ bill in five 20$ bills - same value, still assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d0906a0418371cf2b5a442b1fe2c8f6",
"text": "If the company is non-public, your hands are tied. Most startups have a Stock Option Plan with specific rules on the shares. In almost all cases, they have a Transferability clause preventing transfers of options and shares unless approved by the company (who would almost always say no). Additionally, they usually have a Right of First Refusal (ROFR), which states that if shares are going to be transferred, the company gets the chance to buy it first. In your case, the company may argue your friend would sell you the shares for free and the company would exercise their ROFR and buy back the shares for free. There is not much you can do in this case. You may be able to write up a contract between your friend and you, but it would be costly and possibly not worth the effort. You may be better off asking for a lump sum or some other sort of compensation. Additionally, your friend might want to be careful with this idea. You could potentially gain access to sensitive company tools/documents which could get them in a lot of trouble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df968b0dad2a0f72bf0e625b8d5e3fa0",
"text": "\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "9bc3a2ac08ac1dab68036746f28e6fc4",
"text": "There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df674298eca5e6a1981d5655c6ff77a5",
"text": "Shareholders provide their capital to the company via buying issued stock from said company. In a way they are owning the company through that transaction by a percentage. Ownership is now in question depending on how big the company is. Apple? You have a snowballs chance in Hell trying to assert your 'ownership' of your one share of their stock. So in theory yes they technically own part of the company but the decision making is up the board. Though the shareholders can voice their opinion and give up their vote via proxy voting. I'm a little rusty please correct me if you must.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7802fb64221ba7a31d753654795ba341",
"text": "As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.",
"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": "86b835637d28c8f26ef992aaf303c3d0",
"text": "Generally speaking, if the acquiring company buys less than 50% of the target, the acquirer would not claim any income until there was a dividend or the equity stock appreciated. With a dividend, the acqiring company would participate in and book earnings on the cash received. Without a dividend, equity stock of the target should theoretically rise to reflect higher retained income and the acquirer would book an unrealized gain to gross profit (I think). If the acquiring company buys more than 50% of the target, it is likely all revenues and expences would be consolidated and included in the acquiring company's respective accounts as if it was one cohesive whole. Any residual stake in the target owned by a third party would be reflected in a Minority Interest expense on the acquiring company's income statement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a7d8d3a3461498f918b0618011c9d9",
"text": "ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3a0caf65efb9316f7dc6f786a553ac8a
|
Evaluating stocks useless?
|
[
{
"docid": "adb62c59688d717c78ad88e05c417a2b",
"text": "\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "30fb08e8d2933a0a26d913a1ccc2ced7",
"text": "Gartner, Forester, etc., data and analysis are not worth shit. I learned that from 20+ years as a financial analyst: my wild ass guess was no worse than their wild ass guess on anything but my wild ass guess was a lot cheaper. Its a pity so many investment decisions and strategic plans are based on the garbage cranked out by industry analysts.",
"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": "4f214c7896e53e4033f83168ea3ed4c4",
"text": "The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45a8ae902750a2970edde773d6d2b1a0",
"text": "That makes sense. So it's sort of a thoughtless process on a short time scale, but if you add up all that noise over time you could (potentially) end up with a more meaningful position than if you had valued and bet on each stock individually. And I could see how these things could spread along a chain to unrelated stocks as well...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed",
"text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8f4d0b823ec45f1f14ee70df1183374",
"text": "It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8ec0cc6cf3c726041c5ae43fb00288a",
"text": "I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb",
"text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d61bda3e6310ae960085c1f7f8eb4e",
"text": "\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b69ac10f53184a0049f210129021bb",
"text": "\"Their analysts are actually pretty bright. Remember, they downgraded Facebook before the IPO. However, it doesn't stop the sheep from buying the stock. It's just like those subprime mortgages that pretty much said \"\"THIS IS CRAP\"\" all over the prospectus, and people still brought it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208",
"text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98c511623d1fdfd6d509115f9d468932",
"text": "Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6",
"text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a",
"text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
40628629b77e3ed9867d3a7420ecd85e
|
Exercise ISO or NSO in solo 401k?
|
[
{
"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": "fd95308a0ab5aabf13cc4cf9b2e7e920",
"text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a9d932f7e317e965f944a41ec48a41d",
"text": "I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c50a683c082ec94436effd96d108bed7",
"text": "\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \"\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\"\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c7ca691ed2d32e8795ff763be3063fb",
"text": "What is the question? Are you just trying to confirm that for self-employed, a Solo 401(k) is flexible, and a great tool to level out your tax rates? Sure. A W2 employee can turn on and off his 401(k) deduction any time, and bump the holding on each check as high as 75% in some cases. So in a tight stretch, I'd save to the match, but later on, top off the maximum for the year. To the points you listed - Your observation is interesting, but a bit long for what you seem to be asking. Keep in mind, there are 2 great features that you don't mention - a Roth Solo 401(k) flavor which offers even more flexibility for variable income, and loan provisions, up to $50,000 available to borrow from the account. My fellow blogger The Financial Buff offered an article Solo 401k Providers and Their Scope of Services that did a great job addressing this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373771eb8ca5248a07dbdf343e9fcbd9",
"text": "You could open up CDs or try a few stocks. Once I saved up enough to where I was comfortable in savings and in a retirement account, I went to CDs. Once I was comfortable with CDs I started doing stocks with dividends. Now that I'm happy with what I am receiving in dividends I just recently bought a risky stock. I highly recommend Navy Federal for CDs, if you are eligible and USAA for stocks. Congrats!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53c1bb6b0713aa08599a51f7782a9999",
"text": "In addition to the normal limits, A Solo 401(k) allows you to contribute up to 20% of net profits (sole proprietor) or 50% of salary (if a corporation), up to $49,000. Note that the fees for 401(k) accounts are higher than with the IRA. See 401(k)s for small business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcbaac0fc87e4020f573ccdc19177f29",
"text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "785d81e7e261c8f73ca537ce8b2c9d75",
"text": "\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c5f3fa9c403ed07a04f73d4794e2a74",
"text": "\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b5b90e9340e1eadbd41a2f035e6a76b",
"text": "\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a820aa033d25bb4c1e359316865e6ac8",
"text": "When you exercise a put, you get paid the strike price immediately. So you can invest that money and earn some interest, compared to only exercising at expiry. So the benefit to exercising early is that extra interest. The cost is the remaining time value of the option, along with any dividend payments you miss. As @JoeTaxpayer points out, there might be tax considerations that make it better to exercise at one time rather than another. But those would likely be personal to you, so if the option would intrinsically have more value unexercised, in many cases you could sell it on rather than exercise it. The exception might be if it wasn't very liquid and the transaction costs of doing that outweighed the theoretical value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf11a18f0b61c31cae4772b7d6a1112e",
"text": "Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2531ff3594513e5dd88eb6ebeb4127fc",
"text": "2 years is right before it becomes inactive. Otherwise you have to take CE. Which you need to be somewhere which will keep it updated for you. I'd push off the CFA route unless you have a decent job available, those tests make the 7 look easy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba92dda80ec4ee9b2a01658aad4269a3",
"text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
01a9796f3bff2cc3c8680a8b860a0538
|
Margin Calculations Question
|
[
{
"docid": "f759e47ee285ee8cd602fe2ac7eac649",
"text": "The setup is a purchase of 200 shares at $40 with a cash deposit of $4000 and margin loan of $4000 which a year later grew to $4240. With a margin requirement of 30%, the loan can be 70% or a total stock value of $6057. 1) $30.29 2) -24.3% (The stock fell to $30.29 from $40) 3) -54.6% (Your $4000 fell to $1817)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "50c29401d0ad5c19a05ba7f906e56cbe",
"text": "I was typing up a long response and lost it to a backspace.. so, I apologize but I don't intend on rewriting it all. You'll have to use a method called bootstrapping to get the forward rates. Essentially you're looking at the spot rate today, and the forward rates, then filling in what must be the rate to make them equal out in the end. Sorry I'm not more help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fb94e8d47ea5630d5154ec36535c97f",
"text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7a7044a927ec8ab40b5f4398ddd8cb",
"text": "Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"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": "7b1f115f7e7215d23a3d4e254c803a6e",
"text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d7fd2ab75b51e221d3095eeb756341c",
"text": "So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "8389f755320da15a711c925902a2d0fd",
"text": "Not applicable. Or, at least totally unrealistic. Lots of assumptions about returns, no discussion of time frames, and no discussion of volatility. If it's a personal choice you wouldn't do it this way, plus there are other factors to consider. As far as the math of the question, you use a discount rate that allows you to account for alternatives, typically a RFR, but again, that doesn't apply to an individual quite in the same way since it's not a debt vs equity question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d298f15e936007876cd081e40c7107c7",
"text": "I think what's screwing up my calculation is the (reL), return on equity levereged figure. The beta for KORS apparently is -0.58, so when I use the formula reL = rf + (ßL)(rm - rf), I get -0.0048 as my reL. Am I doing my beta wrong? Am I supposed to use a different figure for my beta? ALSO, further in the process, when using the formula for WACC, my E/(D+E) is essentially 1.0 because market value of equity for KORS is 7bill and its market value of debt is only like 147 million. edit: I'm beginning to believe that my beta of -0.58 is not rightly used. It's what yahoo told me, but other sources are saying that the beta of KORS is more like -0.01 or close to 0. Yes? edit 2: Using -0.01 beta, I get a rdWACC of 2.2%. Now this seems more plausible. I did some research on negative betas and found out that they basically don't really exist aside from gold. So Yahoo must be giving me a weird beta figure. Other websites are all giving me -0.01, so I believe that is correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf8fbb6297344fa58d97ad8831b11ca",
"text": "Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation. The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10e1fac1fa8694c1ec74f74daf59e070",
"text": "Yes, it's a simple calculation. (x+0.0625x)=200 or x=200/1.0625 = $188.24 Technically $188.24 plus tax comes to $200.01. I would just eat the extra $0.01.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066",
"text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0336ebcbd40f6c26b451f893adc916c5",
"text": "If this is the initial transaction, the rules of a short margin account say that if you shorted 1000 share of ABC at $5/share your credit balance would be $5000 from the short plus you would have to put up yourself $5000 cash or $10,000 of marginal securities. So this is not really leveraging using margin. You have to put in just as much as the short generates. Is that what this relates to? Once the initial purchase has been made the minimum maintenance for a stock trading under $5 per share is 100% of the short market value in the margin account or $2.50 per share whichever is greater. For stock trading at $5/share or greater the minimum maintenance requirement is $5/share or 30% of the short market value, whichever is greater. The minimum maintenance requirements can be tighter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132",
"text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b36f3043d28183f6aa5d1a97ae081e7
|
How to interpret a big ask size?
|
[
{
"docid": "1d9157558f778c26156143f17b8efa30",
"text": "Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb",
"text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580a0b1e7b894ec2d0edfe06246d8a7f",
"text": "It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52df732c4df329442fc20ebc702e5e89",
"text": "This is one of the simplest demonstrable examples of a non-intuitive result. (And has a ton of utility for corporate strategy, not just trade ... but many business managers do not understand it). Statistics and exponential growth contain others simple-to-prove non-intuitive results. People need to study this type of stuff more ... brains are no good at understanding reality. David Ricardo was *the* man.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e922f76f4b55236cf0889571e37fab4d",
"text": "It is simply an average of what each analyst covering that stock are recommending, and since they usually only recommend Hold or Buy (rarely Sell), the value will float between Hold and Buy. Not very useful IMHO.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "8bc05a91109205f52534ba5a9306deef",
"text": "\"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened. If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a \"\"buy 100 lots\"\" order, here is what happens: 1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications. No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened. The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response.\"",
"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": "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": "b6a62a2fce4ea7b69f9998722e5496b0",
"text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af10b20aad5898e5868d79f09afeaf6",
"text": "But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5210ada172610a33494d4d0965ec1762",
"text": "Please refer to this question to understand the basics of how an order is matched. How do exchanges match limit orders? Now most of the times even Block orders follow the same matching criteria. I think you are assuming that for every large buy order there is a matching large sell order. This is not true. So on the Buy side at various point in times there were Buy Orders, with Single order more than 10,000 shares. On the sell side to fulfil these orders there may or may not be a single order of 10,000. More often there will be quite a few smaller orders or 500, 1000 or whatever amount that are present in the queue based on the amount & time sort order or even partially matching out of a sell order of 10,000 ... Similarly when there is a large sell order of more than 10,000 , these may not have got filled in by a large buy order but by smaller buy orders etc ... So if you average out the amounts on the buy side and the sell side there would definately be a difference. The analysis of this difference is as indicated in your question, buy price is more than sell price and hence people are bullish ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "446a243fd02fdc1c8eb9d9b3563dcb06",
"text": ">The scariest part of this single program was that its millions of quotes accounted for 10 percent of the bandwidth that is allowed for trading on any given day, according to Nanex. Am I jumping to conclusions? if this was done at a scale ten times larger wouldn't that stop everyone trading for that day? How do you locate who's doing it? Can we stop it or just hope they don't power trip? Wouldn't it be obvious who made money off it if they do decide to use it for that reason? Lots of questions because I'm a noob.",
"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": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f",
"text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
44d8007b93e1bda88480a34ce3119560
|
Which set of earnings is used to work out the P/E of a stock
|
[
{
"docid": "5f5014ca6d5e1582d914c4400f4a7023",
"text": "This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b8b7de9304dbd8cc5d377e97780409",
"text": "\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2897001493318a038f0ffc2ddc37a741",
"text": "\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \"\"we'd expected to make this much\"\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \"\"get a feeling for\"\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \"\"good at time of release\"\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "420682ca10f90e896ec85db9f666cf3a",
"text": "Not quite. The EPS is noted as ttm, which means trailing twelve months --- so the earnings are taken from known values over the previous year. The number you quote as the dividend is actually the Forward Annual Dividend Rate, which is an estimate of the future year's dividends. This means that PFE is paying out more in the coming year (per share) than it made in the previous year (per share).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001e570c3a2a33bd32b83c3442ff2427",
"text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ddaf7271004c475e64b50bd5c65277",
"text": "\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4",
"text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb",
"text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e1168b647035deb672a2797e3a6afe",
"text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa",
"text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f81a857213cb573cf7e58603bb56",
"text": "You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a8ee07f460a8a1fe9480e40afe4f4815",
"text": "Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f3adf4b5a6d10cd96ff4f1b65cca73f",
"text": "P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbd83b14d7050adbbcb96175a40962c",
"text": "Thanks to this youtube video I think I understood the required calculation. Based on following notation: then the formula to find x is: I found afterwards an example on IB site (click on the link 'How to Determine the Last Stock Price Before We Begin to Liquidate the Position') that corroborate the formula above.",
"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": "6d2bbe8026eb8335cb86b52eee7df766",
"text": "\"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index \"\"price\"\" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula. It's not a dollar value. So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index \"\"price\"\"s look similar to consumers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
055e381db0b722162c80e9e9c558d3d3
|
Can I transfer my Employee Stock Purchase Plan assets to a different broker?
|
[
{
"docid": "9b78c0943dfcaac7e33e2f04c6f1e823",
"text": "I have an ESPP with E*Trade; you can transfer stock like that via a physical (paper) asset-transfer form. Look for one of those, and if you can't find it, call your brokerage (or email / whatever). You own the shares, so you can generally do what you want with them. Just be very careful about recording all the purchase and transfer information so that you can deal properly with the taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67d8c5baa9f2fc5cdcb7e4d8ff982046",
"text": "No that is not a rollover. Many employees have experienced a change of management companies. Sometimes these switches are due to a merger, an acquisition, or just to save money. It is understandable that the old employer would like to see you transfer your funds to either your new employer, or roll them over into a IRA/Roth IRA. So it is not unexpected that they will take this opportunity to nudge you. The thing that congress was trying to prevent were serial rollovers of IRAs. These people would use the 60 day window to have in essence a loan. Some would do this multiple times a year; always making sure they replaced the money in time. The IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. Direct transfers of IRA money are not limited This change won’t affect your ability to transfer funds from one IRA trustee directly to another, because this type of transfer isn’t a rollover (Revenue Ruling 78-406, 1978-2 C.B. 157). The one-rollover-per-year rule of Internal Revenue Code Section 408(d)(3)(B) applies only to rollovers. Note that the law doesn't mention 401K/403B or the federal TSP. When the 401K changes management companies that is not a rollover.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39cd5f6296d8871d6cd2d2fbb1e9cf07",
"text": "I strongly suggest personal referral. Ask all of your friends/family/neighbors/co-workers/dog-sitter what they think of their brokers until you find someone who loves his broker. As for transferring assets, I've found it to be quite easy. It's in the new broker's best interest to get those assets, so he should be more than willing to help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae63d0f14228b60481ddb09bdf736ccd",
"text": "Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e71443710085606292dc745c99c90d19",
"text": "Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a2c9291b466f20b6130ad21913668ec2",
"text": "Each S-corp is bound by its own plan documents, which typically do not limit or dictate where the investments are held. Your brokerage account has no tie to the company from which the funds come, however, you are still subject to maximum SIMPLE contribution rules and cannot exceed the $12,500 (if under age 50) COMBINED contribution for any and all companies. Be careful about co-mingling from both companies as there are penalties for early withdrawals made within 2-years of participating in the plan. If you started them both at the same time it's not an issue.",
"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": "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": "a195bc1db3e3089f9216fa4126fd4007",
"text": "\"Yes, you can do that, but you have to have the stocks issued in your name (stocks that you're holding through your broker are issued in \"\"street name\"\" to your broker). If you have a physical stock certificate issued in your name - you just endorse it like you would endorse a check and transfer the ownership. If the stocks don't physically exist - you let the stock registrar know that the ownership has been transferred to someone else. As to the price - the company doesn't care much about the price of private sales, but the taxing agency will. In the US, for example, you report such a transaction as either a gift (IRS form 709), if the transaction was at a price significantly lower than the FMV (or significantly higher, on the other end), or a sale (IRS form 1040, schedule D) if the transaction was at FMV.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "164a04ce2cf9f242e658d9350ca128fb",
"text": "To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US. So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else. Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4f07701547ca7c0b29722ef041bc00",
"text": "\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"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": "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": "c249f2db210d2bec37e5e6f9a3ce423f",
"text": "\"My Schwab panel has the following options: As an example, when I go in to \"\"Wire Transfer,\"\" it prompts me to select which Schwab account, then Domestic or International wire, then amount etc. This will likely depend on the brokerage, I don't think Scottrade or Zecco/Tradeking was this integrated. Personally, I keep brokerage funds pretty well segregated from the remainder of my finances. I transfer money in and out from a more used checking account to keep the accounting more simple.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbb47ed381e77ebd0388498fc1456ac",
"text": "For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2a620b1c510e371f80362453127d40b9
|
How to reconcile these contradictory statements about the effect of volume on stock price?
|
[
{
"docid": "ad0d34f05161b6d87f6d771f60b5c750",
"text": "The first statement is talking about a sudden sharp increase in volume (double or more of average volume) with a sudden increase in price. In other words, there has been a last rush to buy the stock exhausting all the current bulls (buyers), so the bears (sellers) take over, at least temporarily. Whilst the second statement is talking about a gradual increase in volume as the price up trends (thus the use of a volume oscillator). In other words (in an uptrend), the bulls (buyers) are gradually increasing in numbers sending the price higher, and new buyers keep entering the market. (The opposite is the case for a down-trend).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f14906edc80d47fca0c89609ed7aa5",
"text": "These statements aren't necessarily contradictory. In the first case, investors are bearish because they anticipate selling in the future (because all the interested buyers have bought, so all that remains in the short run are people willing to sell and therefore drive down the price). In the second case, the trend is strengthened because the increase in volume indicates that the price movement interested a lot of traders. The trend could be bullish or bearish. The statements aren't contradictory because the second case could very well lead to the first case. For example, if an increase in price is coupled with an increase in volume, this could indicate that the positive trend is strengthening (second case). Traders are becoming more interested in the price move, so they buy. However, once all of the traders who are willing to enter the market long do so, we're in the first case. Investors realize that all of the traders who were interested in buying have bought, so they become bearish because they expect selling to start soon.",
"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": "879c0735767dce73815b86de9e6871b6",
"text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "177520afa3ba3c94f80b068568d73cc0",
"text": "\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbc48e4c50131a5f239d32429769355",
"text": "Buying pressure means there are more interested buyers than there are ready sellers putting upward pressure on prices. That might include institutional buyers who are slowly executing buy orders because they still want the best prices possible without clearing out the market. Buying pressure doesn't have to be related to volume at all. If everyone who owns shares think they are going to be worth far more than recent market prices, they will not offer them for sale. That means there is more demand to buy than there is a supply of shares to be bought. That condition can exist regardless of trading volume.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a031a40d76d52dc0f058342027846fa7",
"text": "That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87111ad5079b801b29090cb55023ea74",
"text": "\"It reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, except that just states in its weakest form that the current market price accounts for all information embedded in previous market prices. In other words, people buying today at 42 know it was selling for 40 yesterday, and the patterns and such. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. One obvious counterexample to this \"\"memoryless\"\" claim is bankruptcy. If a stock files bankruptcy, and there isn't enough money to pay senior debt, your shares are worth 0 in perpetuity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9f1d97d08857ec75a4dae304f17d6bd",
"text": "\"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment). I'm having a hard time believing that it was \"\"poorly argued.\"\" As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)). One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states: *\"\"I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.\"\"* I'm not here to argue for the paper. I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize. ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~ *Edit*: Thought I was responding to a different thread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72faef81eeeb16c4029bb254d6fd4804",
"text": "> One is whether prices are correlated to each other for long periods of time as a preliminary study suggested (which would go against efficient markets hypothesis, since you could use that info to game the market) or if that result is illusory and the long term returns are close to a standard normal distribution which would follow the effiecient markets hypo. The fascinating thing about this is that the returns themselves show no correlation at all (at any time scale), but the *absolute* returns do. i.e. following a sharp rise/drop in price, you can predict that a sharp rise/drop is likely to follow, you just can't say in which direction. And this effect carries over for long periods. Given that by the central limit theorem the sum of identically distributed random variables converges to a gaussian, leads one to think that short term returns *ought* to be gaussian also. However, they're not. Evidently there is something very subtle going on.",
"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": "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": "96085ed5e9764b4c6311102d80047902",
"text": "Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting worse news.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc",
"text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"",
"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": "49136c4aa863e265570541bc1bcd0c3a",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e6174faf6bde970b004746a5db138af9
|
How can I calculate total return of stock with partial sale?
|
[
{
"docid": "0e4deccb755d9c7a79fd4d572b047302",
"text": "If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d",
"text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35a4bbdf656a4b0e349eb5bf63dd1e6d",
"text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0af13625a8bea1d18a009d4c8ad44a5",
"text": "There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "469dd93d4f1c4545dd7884fbca865007",
"text": "Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c311dcf9b9b6b19634e28b5e0457ec5",
"text": "In addition to the answer from CQM, let me answer your 'am I missing anything?' question. Then I'll talk about how your approach of simplifying this is making it both harder and easier for you. Last I'll show what my model for this would look like, but if you aren't capable of stacking this up yourself, then you REALLY shouldn't be borrowing 10,000 to try to make money on the margin. Am I missing anything? YES. You're forgetting (1) taxes, specifically income tax, and (2) sales commissions//transaction fees. On the first: You have not considered anything in your financial model for taxes. You should include at least 25% of your expected returns going to taxes, because anything that you buy... and then sell within 12 months... is taxed as income. Not capital gains. On the second: you will incur sales commissions and/or transaction fees depending on the brokerage you are using for your plan. These tend to vary widely, but I would expect to spend at least $25 per sale. So if I were building out this model I would think that your break-even would have to at least cover: monthly interest + monthly principal payment income tax when sold commissions and broker's fees every time you sell holdings On over-simplifying: You have the right idea with thinking about both interest and principal in trying to sketch this out. But as I mentioned above, you're making this both harder and easier for yourself. You are making it harder because you are doing the math wrong. The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal). Your rate of return (if you do this in Excel you can play with it some, but you should save the time and just invest somewhere else.) Your actual return that month (rate of return * existing capital balance). Loan payment = 432 for the parameters you gave earlier. Income tax = (Actual Return) * (.25). With this kind of loan, you're not actually making enough to preserve the 10,000 capital and you're selling everything you've gained each month. Commission = ($25 per month) ... assuming that covers your trade fees and broker commissions. I guarantee you that this is not the deal breaker in the model, so don't get excited if you think I'm over-estimating this and you realize that Scottrade or somewhere will let you have trades at $7.95 each. Monthly ending balance == next month's starting capital balance. Stack it all up in Excel for 24 months and see for yourself if you like. The key thing you left out is that you're repaying each month out of capital that you'd like to use to invest with. This makes you need much higher returns. Even if your initial description wasn't clear and this is an interest-only loan, you're still looking at a rate of about 7.6% annually that you need to hit in order to just break even on the costs of holding the loan and transferring your gains into cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98",
"text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7a7044a927ec8ab40b5f4398ddd8cb",
"text": "Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f532d58c93660b445922f2c46034831",
"text": "Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbe2602216d25f7f2f97e3625c46ea0b",
"text": "\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec",
"text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9758a5c6885e6ddfe6022e9eb530ab12",
"text": "\"According to the following article the answer is \"\"first-in, first-out\"\": http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-cost-basis-stock-multiple-purchases-21588.html According to the following article the last answer was just one option an investor can choose: https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/advice-investing-costbasis?akredirect=true\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cad25b359d86205542cd59d086db3a8c",
"text": "Is there a way in bloomberg to calculate the total return if one purchased $100 worth of 10 Year US Notes at time X and perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? I've been able to historically use the COMP function to compare equity and ETF total returns, but curious if this function can be expanded to measure returns against commodities, treasuries, and other debt products. Unfortunately im having trouble pulling in the appropriate continuous commodity and treasury tickers.",
"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": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44",
"text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5a95d65477663dfcf01e2ed5e2fbee3",
"text": "There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e13f4a4d7d6907b7bab5ecbf0bcd8a2a",
"text": "Actually, total return is the most important which isn't necessarily just price change as this doesn't account for dividends that may be re-invested. Thus, the price change isn't necessarily that useful in terms of knowing what you end up with as an ending balance for an investment. Secondly, the price change itself may be deceptively large as if the stock initial price was low, e.g. a few dollars or less adjusting for stock splits as most big companies will split the stock once the price is high enough, then the percentages can be quite large years later. Something else to consider is the percentage change would be based on what as the initial base. The price at the start of the chart or something else? Carefully consider what you want the initial starting point to be in determining price shifts here as one could take either end and claim a rationale for using it. Most people want to look at the price to get an idea of what would X shares cost to purchase rather than look at the percentage change from day to day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a20f6fddb1a14c0ccbe2733850c33ce1
|
Is dividend taxation priced in derivatives?
|
[
{
"docid": "619d9bf8f60fc3b352242259405401bb",
"text": "No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb020c389e7c7883d49fa4d1a0bf7afe",
"text": "\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\"",
"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": "34143732aa5386271946327f19199cab",
"text": "Surprisingly enough, this one isn't actually all that complicated. No, you will not be taxed twice. Dividends are paid by the company, which in this case is domiciled in Spain. As a Spanish company, the Spanish government will take dividend witholding tax from this payment before it is paid to a foreign (i.e. non-Spanish resident) shareholder. What's happening here is that a Spanish company is paying a dividend to a Malaysian resident. The fact that the Spanish stock was purchased in the form of an ADR from a US stock market using US dollars is actually irrelevant. The US has no claim to tax the dividend in this case. One brave investor/blogger in Singapore even set out to prove this point by buying a Spanish ADR just before the dividend was paid. Bravo that man! http://www.investmentmoats.com/money-management/dividend-investing/how-to-calculate-dividend-withholding-taxes-on-us-adrs-for-international-investors-my-experience-with-telefonica/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53da041e5b8c1a6f7148e4d5b1358ea5",
"text": "It depends on your investment profile but basically, dividends increase your taxable income. Anyone making an income will effectively get 'lower returns' on their investments due to this effect. If you had the choice between identical shares that either give a dividend or don't, you'll find that stock that pays a dividend has a lower price, and increases in value more slowly than stock that doesn't. (all other things being equal) There's a whole bunch of economic theory behind this but in short, the current stock price is a measure of how much the company is worth combined with an estimation of how much it will be worth in the future (NPV of all future dividends is the basic model). When the company makes profit, it can keep those profits, and invest in new projects or distribute a portion of those profits to shareholders (aka dividends). Distributing the value to shareholders reduces the value of the company somewhat, but the shareholders get the money now. If the company doesn't give dividends, it has a higher value which will be reflected in a higher stock price. So basically, all other things being equal (which they rarely are, but I digress) the price and growth difference reflects the fact that dividends are paying out now. (In other words, if you wanted non-dividend shares you could get them by buying dividend shares and re-investing the dividend as new shares every time there was a payout, and you could get dividend-share like properties by selling a percentage of non-dividend shares periodically). Dividend income is taxable as part of your income right away, however taxes on capital gains only happen when you sell the asset in question, and also has a lower tax rate. If you buy and hold Berkshire Hatheway, you will not have to pay taxes on the gains you get until you decide to sell the shares, and even then the tax rate will be lower. If you are investing for retirement, this is great, since your income from other sources will be lower, so you can afford to be taxed then. In many jurisdictions, income from capital gains is subject to a different tax rate than the rest of your income, for example in the US for most people with money to invest it's either 15% or 20%, which will be lower than normal income tax would be (since most people with money to invest would be making enough to be in a higher bracket). Say, for example, your income now is within the 25% bracket. Any dividend you get will be taxed at that rate, so let's say that the dividend is about 2% and the growth of the stock is about 4%. So, your effective growth rate after taxation is 5.5% -- you lose 0.5% from the 25% tax on the dividend. If, instead, you had stock with the same growth but no dividend it would grow at a rate of 6%. If you never withdrew the money, after 20 years, $1 in the dividend stock would be worth ~$2.92 (1.055^20), whereas $1 in the non-dividend stock would be worth ~$3.21 (1.06^20). You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ac92b9bf00a4d1b18d5a4e79b41b059e",
"text": "Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes? When the company buys the shares for you, you do not owe any taxes. You are exercising your rights under the ESPP. You have bought some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount that you received when you bought the stock is generally considered additional compensation to you, so you have to pay taxes on it as regular income. Source: Turbotax. Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate. If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)",
"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": "0135bf2ab914c53905961d531f2b4ae1",
"text": "My understanding was that if they cash out they only have to pay capital gains tax on it, which is lower than income tax for their bracket. You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries. According to Wikipedia: Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers Anyways, SOMETHING needs to be done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38938170fd4f3efbb645ded4fb76a583",
"text": "I am using the same logic as the two answers above. I got almost the same result ($46.60 instead of $46.59 per share) using the sold fractional share basis. However, the JCI Qualified Dividend (on the 1099-DIV, not the 1099-B) divided by the number of shares spun off yields a basis per share of only $40.97 That compares to $45.349 in answer two above. It seems that we should get the approximately same basis per share using the same arithmetic, and I do not know why we don't. For my tax files, I plan to use the Adient basis equal to the dividend from the 2016 1099-DIV of JCI (the PLC after the merger). My reasoning is that I cannot use an amount for the Adient basis that is greater than the dividend I paid taxes on. [In case this part of the question comes up again, you can get historical quotes at various websites such as https://finance.yahoo.com/quote, which does show $45.51 as the Adient closing price on 10/31/16.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf11a18f0b61c31cae4772b7d6a1112e",
"text": "Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6767af220ac2a9692b2d8eeef35eaf91",
"text": "The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e6c1f7efce6057935896af1d891ccbe",
"text": "A futures contract is based upon a particular delivery date. In the case of a stock index futures contract is a cash settled futures contract based upon the stock index value at a particular point in time (i.e. this is when the final settlement is determined). In your example, the S&P 500 (SPX) is a price return index - that is, it is not affected by dividends and therefore dividends are not incorporated into the index value. Dividends will affect the price of the constituent stocks (not necessarily by the same amount as the dividend) so they do have influence on the stock index value. Since the dividends are known ahead of time (or at least can be estimated), this has already been factored into the futures price by the market. In terms of the impact of a dividend by AAPL, AAPL is approximaetely 3.6% of the index. Apple pays out dividends 4 times a year (currently paying out $0.52 dividends). Assuming the market is otherwise steady and AAPL drops by $0.52 due to the dividend and Apple is priced at around $105, this would result in a drop in the index of 0.0178% or around 0.35 points. Interesting fact: There are some futures contracts that are based upon Total Return indexes, such as the German DAX and the above logic would need to be reversed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45fed3fdfefc389c5e6a939ea75b0d38",
"text": "83(b) election requires you to pay the current taxes on the discount value. If the discount value is 0 - the taxes are also 0. Question arises - why would someone pay FMV for restricted stocks? That doesn't make sense. I would argue, as a devil's advocate, that the FMV is not really fair market value, since the restriction must have reduced the price you were willing to pay for the stocks. Otherwise why would you buy the stocks at full price - with strings attached that could easily cost you the whole amount you paid?",
"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": "1b2244942670394e9c2efb0cfe36dbcd",
"text": "If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
440b5079538f1f4b15dc0b75f69f6f13
|
Wash sales and year end tax implications
|
[
{
"docid": "e172e3f18a9d3e1aacb2b670a7697e9f",
"text": "Yes, the net effect is zero. If you own zero shares by Nov 30, for example, and don't buy any more shares by 12/31, the year is done, and nothing left to account for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b9d65921f3dd4bb75d269ea1873d8ddf",
"text": "The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc2900dd925281d60d1f846130c6e5f",
"text": "\"Everything is fine. If line 77 from last year is empty, you should leave this question blank. You made estimated tax payments in 2015. But line 77 relates to a different way to pay the IRS. When you filed your 2014 taxes, if you were owed a refund, and you expected to owe the IRS money for 2015, line 77 lets you say \"\"Hey IRS, instead of sending me a refund for 2014, just keep the money and apply it to my 2015 taxes.\"\" You can also ask them to keep a specified amount and refund the rest. Either way this is completely optional. It sounds like you didn't do that, so you don't fill in anything here. The software should ask you in a different question about your estimated tax payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d52ea9db44206476ac686502ec2c2d92",
"text": "\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1679f0d2d26beadcd18ecfb9aa29f15e",
"text": "What makes you think corporations don't have to pay sales taxes or property taxes (or excise taxes, or environmental impact fees or fuel taxes or any of a million other taxes that we all end up paying) even if they lose money that year?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86645797bf5db511695605654ac08d4b",
"text": "\"Assuming U.S. law, there are \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9797c3ae43e312e7a4e29c26a0f28f57",
"text": "If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "bd2b03ed3cd4d1e068eb182200ec4848",
"text": "\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36fcccad5602fec5364f2c1f4e6d3235",
"text": "Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32b7ef01542919e2a594db157eaa3673",
"text": "\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed78f35d2db90200e5a3c241f8caba8d",
"text": "In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "be443f0165b1dd058028841d3e5487d1",
"text": "The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "856888a2499d8ea27cb454ac4c6e0f26",
"text": "Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09eda7b24f83e3989de913f530f95515",
"text": "\"You don't offer any specifics, so I'm guessing a little about what you're talking about, but here's a few thoughts: Remember that all tax-related transactions are reconciled when you file. All of your activity for the year is totaled up and (for the most part) when during the year things happen is irrelevant. Your gross taxable income is calculated (which will exclude any \"\"pre-tax\"\" activity, deduction applied (which will any include and \"\"post-tax\"\" deductions), tax liability calculated, and withholdings subtracted to get your net tax due. Whether you have \"\"pre-tax\"\" activity and less tax withheld or \"\"after-tax\"\" activity with a deduction and reduce your net tax, the net effect should be the same.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7301801ddc590ed533f310cf3d4e79ff
|
How good is Wall Street Survivor for learning about investing?
|
[
{
"docid": "307e12c983b5fd0bf60a9811f70883cb",
"text": "\"While I've never used Wall Street Survivor, I took a look over the marketing materials and I've seen multiple similar contests run among investment interns also just out of college. I see some good here and some bad. First off, I love interactive web-based tutorials. I've used one to learn the syntax of a new programming language and I find the instant feedback and the ability to work at your own pace very useful. The reviews seem to say that Wall Street Survivor is a good way to learn the basics of how trading stocks works and the lingo. Also, it seems pretty fun which I've found helps a lot. Wall Street Survivor will hopefully teach you that there are many real stock markets and that they may have somewhat different prices and they likely take the real and timely data from a single market. Wall Street Survivor also frightens me. The big problem that I see with interns running similar contests is that the market is extremely random over short to medium periods of time. An intern can make an awful portfolio or even pick stocks at random and still win the contest. These interns know a lot about the randomness in markets already so they don't believe they are trading geniuses because they won a contest, I'm not sure there is much to temper this view on this web-site. Also, while Wall Street Survivor teaches you about trading it doesn't appear to teach you about investing. The website appears to encourage short term views and changing positions a lot and doesn't seem to simulate the full trading costs (including fees) that would eat away at the gains of a individual investor that trades that much. It gives some help with longer term thinking like diversification, but also seems to encourage trading that makes Wall Street Survivor more money, but are likely detrimental to the user. I would say have fun with Wall Street Survivor. Let it teach you some things about trading, but don't give the site much if any money. At the same time, pick up a copy of short book called \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" and start learning about investing at the same time. Feel free to come back to Stack Exchange with questions along the way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66391544bf97a3858c7e540b5e958624",
"text": "To be honest, wall street survivor is good but when it comes to learning the stock markets from Europe, Beat wall street is the game to be playing. You can try it out for your self here on http://beatwallstreet.equitygameonline.com/ It is easy to use and there are monthly prizes available to winners, such as Ipads, Iphones and students who play it the game can win internships at top investment banks and brokers",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23a77c2c5432db5c7cf786f6e890560",
"text": "I find this site to be really poor for the virtual play portion, especially the options league. After you place a trade, you can't tell what you actually traded. The columns for Exp and type are blank. I have had better luck with OptionsXpress virtual trader. Although they have recently changed their criteria for a non funded accounts and will only keep them active for 90 days. I know the cboe has a paper trading platform but I haven't tried it out yet.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d5600bed0504562a8904efa3439539e5",
"text": "I have taken the free Kiyosaki evening course, and it does give some good information. It is an upsell to the $500 weekend course, which I also took. That course taught me enough about real-estate investing to get started. I have not yet had the need to pursue his other, more expensive courses. Read his books, take the $500 course, read other people's books on real estate investing, talk to other like-minded individuals, and gain some experience. I understand real estate better than I understand paper assets because I spent more time studying real estate. If you want to invest in real estate, study it first. If you want to invest in paper assets, study those first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed94c996ea2eda52c332ab82b4541cd4",
"text": "I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company. A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable? This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76f9c1624e8075f65a31b13631eb4648",
"text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cc39d91d4ee180fe587330a6019f814",
"text": "You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48d391288ce8b4c9ec0f9744f83bcef9",
"text": "In general I would recommend to stay away from any video from a successful trader, at least those that claim to share their secrets. If they were that successful, why would they want company? What they have most likely discovered is that they can make more money through videos and seminars than they can through trading. While not a video, GetSmarterAboutMoney has a good basic section on Stock markets without being purely Canada centric (as I see from your profile you are in NY). I know that also in our city, there are continuing education courses that often go over the basics like this, if you have a college nearby they might have something. Cheapest of all would be to hit your local library. The fundamentals don't change that quickly that you need the latest and greatest - those are much more likely to be get-poor-quick schemes. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abc2f84718703e157926e5b001527a6f",
"text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f29b3e1b901482f9418dda298d363091",
"text": "Commonly recommended books: Intelligent Investor - Graham One Up On Wall Street - Lynch The Essays of Warren Buffett : Lessons for Corporate America - Cunningham Graham's book should be mandatory reading for this sub. Lynch's book talks about leveraging your personal expertise to make intelligent investment choices. Cunningham's is a compilation of Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders of BH with some commentary. It covers a wider range of material, but the lessons on corporate governance are very useful when doing valuation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "958bc50fb642ea1196eccc7d99737758",
"text": "Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d61bda3e6310ae960085c1f7f8eb4e",
"text": "\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8988d7685d8ed4155b5700d0afd18403",
"text": "I followed Economics by Michael Parkin for my college level course. It does not involve very complicated mathematics (beyond simple arithmetic and interpreting plots/charts). I found it very enjoyable. Stocks, bonds, and other money market instruments are not covered under this subject usually. They are covered under finance. I normally recommend Hull to people but because you are not interested in mathematics I would recommend Stuart R Veale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1d1092c729bf1c0d6d13a0404f41686",
"text": "Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd0b25899dfe8a0d7965310d6cfc769b",
"text": "Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a better one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6a9e919222d50155f265ee9a1dfe37c",
"text": "As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f70a899fec01d9205d64124e0970dc19",
"text": "\"In the words of David Einhorn, Flash Boys was \"\"based on a true story.\"\" The way Lewis tells the story is extremely misleading, and you seem to have been suckered in. HFT has reduced spreads to a small fraction of what they were 20 years ago, they are awesome for average people, who are retail traders. Lewis uses \"\"ordinary investors\"\" to mean guys like Einhorn, who do suffer from HFT because they make it hard to buy large blocks of stock without moving the price. But it is not a God-given right to buy stock without moving the price against yourself, and guys like Einhorn now understand how to trade given the current market structure.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
17e6eda6994e2a83386b03e6e31a9de5
|
Definition of equity
|
[
{
"docid": "f647dec432cc64c784b8e4707e83ead2",
"text": "I was wondering why equity is reflecting ownership of the issuing entity? That is the definition of equity in this regard. My understanding is that for a stock/equity, its issuing entity is a company/firm that sells the stock/equity, while its receiving entity is an investor that buys the stock/equity Correct. equity reflects ownership of the receiving entity i.e. investor Incorrect. Equity reflects ownership by the receiving entity of the issuing entity. That is, when you buy stock in a company (taking an equity stake in the company) you buy a piece of the company. It would be rather odd for the company to own a piece of you when you buy their stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10146422146a526d61bd87b628390865",
"text": "The word equity always refers to the ownership of something, whether it be a company or a home. The wikipedia article is differentiating companies by how they raised money for operations. Equity companies, by their definition are those that sold an interest in the company in exchange for capital. Debt based companies, again by their definition, are those that borrow money from investors, but instead of an ownership stake they promise to pay back the money presumably with interest.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c197ad441c09d2f3cfd1b2b06df90281",
"text": "I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d718680b0cd151f64d4cb4d777842e0",
"text": "\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"",
"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": "c1140caa8335ae427e6326430838e159",
"text": "\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c",
"text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e9ad9c1f285911844b593c4fba6f05",
"text": "If you truly have > 22% equity, they have to stop it. However, without an appraisal, how do you know if you have > 22% equity? If you bought the house for 100k, and paid your mortgage down to 78k, but now the house is only worth 78k, you have 0% equity, not 22% equity. Without an appraisal, you have no idea how much equity you have. Yeah, it sucks, but that's how equity is calculated: based on the current value, not the past value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c",
"text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3",
"text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f18a170ac1d92e77e5a4792ddf675b6",
"text": "Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58fee466a1611be7e3a36f466ff3a5b7",
"text": "\"Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income? 5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary. Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable) I also just noticed you mentioned \"\"investing\"\" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%. Read this for more info on how equity is usually split.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "034478c2548401516a6c888259603221",
"text": "\"The Equity balance is your Assets (stuff you own) minus your Liabilities (debts you owe to others). It represents your \"\"net worth\"\" - how much money you would have when you would pay all your debts. When you want anything to show up in Equity, you need to make use of the asset and liability sheets. As long as you only manage Income and Expenses, your equity won't change. When you want to \"\"save\"\" money so the saved up money appears as an Asset and thus affecty your Equity, book it as an expense to your Cash or Bank asset account. For more information, check Chapter 3 of the GNUCash manual.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc",
"text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72fd6e652e8b3d14b6257d864896e856",
"text": "Citing the Yahoo Finance Help page, Beta: The Beta used is Beta of Equity. Beta is the monthly price change of a particular company relative to the monthly price change of the S&P500. The time period for Beta is 3 years (36 months) when available. Regarding customised time periods, I do not think so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "118c4f391c47a9cef09d2b7a8617650b",
"text": "Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4",
"text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
df8b3e0e32acdf58c096ee378a5022ca
|
Should I use regular or adjusted close for backtesting?
|
[
{
"docid": "4e32701e9024926ede1d5c4df96b6785",
"text": "You would have to compare your backtesting to what you will be doing in real trading, and try to have the backtesting as close to your real trading as possible. Note: you may never get the backtesting to match your real trading exactly but you need to get as close as possible. The whole purpose of backtesting is to check if your trading strategies - your signals, entries and exits, and your stops - are profitable over various market conditions. As you would be using actual closes to do your real trading you should be using this to also do your backtesting. Rather than using adjusted data to get an idea of your total return from your backtesting, you can always add the value of the dividends and other corporate actions to the results from using the actual data. You may even find a way to add any dividends and other corporate action to your results automatically, i.e. any dividend amount added to your total return if the stock is held during the ex-dividend date. If you are using adjusted data in your backtesting this may affect any stops you have placed, i.e. it may cause your stop to be triggered earlier or later than in real trading. So you will need to determine how you will treat your stops in real trading. Will you adjust them when there is corporate action such as dividends? Or will you leave them constant until actual prices have gone up? If you will be leaving your stops constant then you should definitely be using actual data in your backtesting to better match your real trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0c9b4874c0abd6793911216f8c490b",
"text": "A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe94790886a9394147e271ebb5e30b30",
"text": "If you want to monitor how well you did in choosing your investments you will want to use stock prices that account for the dividends and splits and other changes (not just the closing price). The adjusted close will include these changes where the straight close will not include them. Using the adjusted close you will get your true percentage change. For example I have a stock called PETS that paid an $0.18 dividend in July 2015. The adjusted closes before that day in July are all $0.18 lower per share. Say the closing price had been unchanged at $20.00. The close prices would say I made no profit, but the adjusted closing price would say I made $0.18 per share on this investment because the adjusted close would read $19.82 in June 2015 but would read $20.00 in August 2015 (just like the closing price). The adjusted close allows me to know my true profit per share.",
"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": "aaf92fe78bcc576ccc41071daa8b9018",
"text": "Two ways to solve this. Look at the answer. If the answer says 3 months, then using ceiling for similar questions. You have to act according to the exam conventions, not according to own feelings. Whether or not the answer is reasonable and applicable in real life is out of the question. Ask yourself, did the investment double after 14 years 2 months? i.e. FV >= 2PV. Does a person who ran 99.72 meters in a 100-meter dash counted as touching the finish line?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c952fe075cab38f29ff4a7bb9525261",
"text": "There is no right way but changing your methodology to suit your situation is a problem. They were happy to use a 4 years period during the crazy times to lower the VAR and then switch to 1 year afterwards to do the same. It is picking and choosing your measures to suit the situation and that is statistical heresy. While there may not be a right way to measure VAR choosing the measure that is suits your situation is bad methodology. And of course there is such a thing as bad statistical methodology, you see it everyday. I also pointed out above that it vairies from bank to bank what confidence interval you use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92ac07181ef0abaf52cbf9cc6fbdab6",
"text": "Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "755b34d8f032598883b8606ca388a09a",
"text": "\"The formula for standard deviation is fairly simple in both the discrete and continuous cases. It's mostly safe to use the discrete case when working with adjusted closing prices. Once you've calculated the standard deviation for a given time period, the next task (in the simplest case) is to calculate the mean of that same period. This allows you to roughly approximate the distribution, which can give you all sorts of testable hypotheses. Two standard deviations (σ) away from the mean (μ) is given by: It doesn't make any sense to talk about \"\"two standard deviations away from the price\"\" unless that price is the mean or some other statistic for a given time period. Normally you would look at how far the price is from the mean, e.g. does the price fall two or three standard deviations away from the mean or some other technical indicator like the Average True Range (an exponential moving average of the True Range), some support level, another security, etc. For most of this answer, I'll assume we're using the mean for the chosen time period as a base. However, the answer is still more complicated than many people realize. As I said before, to calculate the standard deviation, you need to decide on a time period. For example, you could use S&P 500 data from Yahoo Finance and calculate the standard deviation for all adjusted closing prices since January 3, 1950. Downloading the data into Stata and applying the summarize command gives me: As you can probably see, however, these numbers don't make much sense. Looking at the data, we can see that the S&P 500 hasn't traded close to 424.4896 since November 1992. Clearly, we can't assume that this mean and standard deviation as representative of current market conditions. Furthermore, these numbers would imply that the S&P 500 is currently trading at almost three standard deviations away from its mean, which for many distribution is a highly improbable event. The Great Recession, quantitative easing, etc. may have changed the market significantly, but not to such a great extent. The problem arises from the fact that security prices are usually non-stationary.. This means that the underlying distribution from which security prices are \"\"drawn\"\" shifts through time and space. For example, prices could be normally distributed in the 50's, then gamma distributed in the 60's because of a shock, then normally distributed again in the 70's. This implies that calculating summary statistics, e.g. mean, standard deviation, etc. are essentially meaningless for time periods in which prices could follow multiple distributions. For this and other reasons, it's standard practice to look at the standard deviation of returns or differences instead of prices. I covered in detail the reasons for this and various procedures to use in another answer. In short, you can calculate the first difference for each period, which is merely the difference between the closing price of that period and the closing price of the previous period. This will usually give you a stationary process, from which you can obtain more meaningful values of the standard deviation, mean, etc. Let's use the S&P500 as an example again. This time, however, I'm only using data from 1990 onwards, for the sake of simplicity (and to make the graphs a bit more manageable). The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively. As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer). Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this: This looks a lot more reasonable. In periods of recession, the price appears much more volatile, and it breaches the +/- one standard deviation lines indicated on the graph. This is only a simple summary, but using first differencing as part of the wider process of detrending/decomposing a time series is a good first step. For some technical indicators, however, stationary isn't as relevant. This is the case for some types of moving averages and their associated indicators. Take Bollinger bands for instance. These are technical indicators that show a number of standard deviations above and below a moving average. Like any calculation of standard deviation, moving average, statistic, etc. they require data over a specified time period. The analyst chooses a certain number of historical periods, e.g. 20, and calculates the moving average for that many previous periods and the moving/rolling standard deviation for those same periods as well. The Bollinger bands represent the values a certain number of standard deviations away from the moving average at a given point in time. At this given point, you can calculate the value two standard deviations \"\"away from the value,\"\" but doing so still requires the historical stock price (or at least the historical moving average). If you're only given the price in isolation, you're out of luck. Moving averages can indirectly sidestep some of the issues of stationarity I described above because it's straightforward to estimate a time series with a process built from a moving average (specifically, an auto-regressive moving average process) but the econometrics of time series is a topic for another day. The Stata code I used to generate the graphs and summary statistics:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b09f150a05d07b2578d575ce7ace79c",
"text": "I have never seen a backtest showing that prices tended to be attracted by / to revert around Fibonacci levels. The fact that many people use them doesn't mean that they can be turned into a profitable system... I have on the other hand seen many backtests showing that they don't do anything, such as the one described in this article: At least in this sample of market data, using this particularly specification for swings, we find no evidence that Fibonacci ratios are significant in the market. Perhaps I have missed something significant, or perhaps I am merely completely wrong in my analysis, but one thing should be clear—the burden of proof should lie on the people offering arcane and complex methodologies, when simpler methods work just as well or better in the marketplace. If Fibonacci ratios are the key to the markets, where are the quantitative tests? Where’s the proof?",
"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": "c59227ca475715a45c6c73bc1bac7816",
"text": "The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c04be15b6800d5c5717ebe50622497f3",
"text": "\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fd70c5b0bc26e33fe0f83b981d66cef",
"text": "I don't think user4358's explanation is correct. A trailing LIT Sell Order adjusts downwards, i.e. if you place the order with an Aux price (in TWS it's trigger price) of 105.00 and a trailing amount of 6.00 then, assuming the ask is 100.00, TWS will add the trailing amount to the ask price and if it's less than the trigger price it will adjust. So in my example, if the market (ask) goes straight up to 105.00, nothing will be adjusted, the trigger is touched and the limit order will be placed (see below). If on the the other hand the market goes down to 99.00 then trlng amt + ask is 105.00, if it goes further down to 98.00 then the trigger price will be adjusted to 104.00 (because it's less than the current trigger), and so on. For the LIT part you have either an absolute limit price you can enter, or you have an offset limit which will be subtracted from the trigger price, in which case it is adjusted as well. So back to my example, the trigger is now 104.00 and the limit offset is say 1.00, so my limit order would be placed at 103.00 if the ask ever touches 104.00, and that in turn is only visible if the bid touches 103.00 (because it's limit-if-touched). For a buy just use the same explanation with some swapped roles, the trigger price adjust upwards when the trailing amount plus bid is larger than the current trigger, and the limit offset will be added to the trigger price. Edit Also quite succinct and worth having a look at: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/orders/trailingLimitTouched.php Guesswork, highly subjective As for why this might be good, well, you have to believe in momentum strategies, i.e. a market that goes down, will continue to go down, if you believe that and you believe in mean reversion as well, then a trailing limit order can assist you in not buying/selling impulsively, but closer to the mean. I've never used it that way though. What I have done, even just now to get the explanation right, is to place trailing buy and sell orders simultaneously. You will find that you can just go in with coarse estimates and because the adjustments will go towards each other, you will end up with a narrowing band of trigger prices (as opposed to trailing stop orders which will give you a widening band of trigger prices). If you believe in overshooting and equilibria then this can be one easy way to profit from it. I've just sold EURUSD for 1.26420 and bought it back at 1.26380 with a trailing amount of 5pips and a limit offset of 2pips within the time of writing this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed5e9ea4c94d16c474d6154a73443ab5",
"text": "Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eadd1ce071908e6aa799fdfde787cf5",
"text": "I would also be getting out of the stock market if I noticed prices starting to fall and a crash possibly on the way. There are some good and quite simple techniques I would use to time the markets over the medium to long term. I have described some of them in the answer to this question of mine: What are some simple techniques used for Timing the Stock Market over the long term? You could use similar techniques in your investing. And in regards to back-testing DCA to Timing The Markets, I have done that too in my answer to the following question: Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter? Timing the Markets wins hand down. In regards to back-testing and the concerns Kent Anderson has brought up, when I back-test a trading strategy, if that strategy is successful, I then forward test it over a year or two to confirm the results. As with back-testing you can sometimes curve fit your criteria too much. By forward testing you are confirming that the strategy is robust over different market conditions. One strategy you can take when the market does start to fall is short selling, as mentioned by some already. I am now short selling using CFDs over the short to medium term as one of my more aggressive strategies. I have a longer term strategy where I do not short, but tighten my stop losses when the market starts to tank. Sometimes my positions will keep going up even though the market as a whole is heading down, and I can make an extra 5% to 10% on these positions before I get taken out. The rare position even continues going up during the whole downturn and when the market starts to recover. So I let the market decide when I get out and when I stay in, I leave my emotions out of it. The best thing you can do is have a written trading plan with all your criteria for getting into the market, your criteria for getting out of the market and your position sizing and risk management incorporated in the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b303954acf188426116b459d9b2a890",
"text": "\"Back-testing itself is flawed. \"\"Past performance is no guarantee of future results\"\" is an important lesson to understand. Market strategies of one kind or another work until they don't. Edited in -- AssetPlay.net provides a tool that's halfway to what you are looking for. It only goes back to 1972, however. Just to try it, I compared 100% S&P to a 60/40 blend of S&P with 5 yr t-bills (a misnamed asset, 5 yr treasuries are 'notes' not 'bills') I found the mix actually had a better return with lower volatility. Now, can I count on that to work moving forward? Rates fell during most of this entire period so bonds/notes both looked pretty good. This is my point regarding the backtest concept. GeniusTrader appears more sophisticated, but command line work on PCs is beyond me. It may be worth a look for you, JP. ETF Replay appears to be another backtest tool. It has its drawbacks, however, (ETFs only)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2afb0e5b881185397c07833faf8ab0c1
|
Large volume options sell
|
[
{
"docid": "fe276ec8f08d7df01b453cd052d35603",
"text": "It depends upon who the counterparty is. If the counterparty is the OCC, they would most likely call force majeure if their finances were at serious risk. They could be forced to take a loss but not to be pulled apart. Villain could always try to take the OCC to court, but then his plot would probably be exposed in discovery. The need to involve the courts is even greater if these are private contracts. If the options were on one security, they would be difficult to sell in one day. If they were spread across the most liquid ETFs and equities, they could be sold in one day easily, the above solvency problems notwithstanding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "318159947d4d409d67bbc8180007ca1e",
"text": "\"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "71abadf909286b1f642408f3d9ddf0d8",
"text": "The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a02f833c1d38b9690a782247c15885f",
"text": "\"Its bandwidth, so no, it wouldn't clog up the \"\"tubes\"\" like a highway. Everyone who quotes has a fixed amount of bandwidth and an exchange can cut off a firm's connection. The exchanges know who is quoting- you have to buy connections to them to do this stuff. Every exchange I have seen has reporting capability to see who is quoting what, and who is trading what. Whoever is doing this isn't making any money, because they didn't trade anything! Servers and connectivity are expensive, so they are actually losing money. This situation is almost certainly due to either a new algo \"\"soft launching\"\" or being tweaked and having its parameters set too conservatively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5",
"text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02e1225d535f7294a762236a0c8f62c",
"text": "> “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.” > -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis. Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock. This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models. Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04fd815fdb970c4b4460756c2c98afb4",
"text": "\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b6da6db0482f0c3ee1f3176632c122c",
"text": "I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea009c9cb60a6fff7331e6abd1e3c1e",
"text": "\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3583b809aa9d5fe8495000b401715b5",
"text": "Well the thing to understand about HFT is that the volume levels heavily affect not just the earnings but also the ecosystem. HFT is almost always liquidity constrained so the volume and volatility is going to affect the overall profitability of the strategy since less of these things means fewer and smaller trading opportunities. Since 2008 volume and volatility have been heavily negatively correlated with risk-on/risk-off. During risk-off periods investors seem to panic and trading hits a frentic pace. This describes late 2008 and more recently August 2011. Even in 2012 the highest volume/volatility period was in May when the Euro deals were in danger. Risk-on environments tend to be marked be calm, orderly buying. Second the dark pool issue is bringing liquidity out of the lit markets where HFT normally makes its money. The primary reason for this trend is that dark pools are allowed to offer sub-penny quotes whereas lit exchanges are not. Because of this arbitrary regulatory constraint most of the time dark pools are going to offer better prices, especially on thick book securities. But beyond that the level of volume effects some HFT players more heavily then others. Imagine all the HFT firms as a pride of lions. When volume is high and liquidity is flowing it's like the pride has brought in a giant water buffalo. The biggest, baddest cats eat first, but there's still food left for the cubs after they're finished feeding. But if the pride only brings in say a baby gazelle the alpha cats will eat everything and the runts will go hungry. That basically describes what's happening now. A firm like RennTech or GETCO will make less money in a low volume environment, but still do fine. Marginal firms like Eladian will lose the ability to make any money. Since the marginal firms need the press and the dominant firms tend to be more secretive than the NSA, you'll tend to read more about the former than the latter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c9a310e4f1b457214293130c02765e1",
"text": "Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86299ef4bea9c9731e109598830c18b3",
"text": "I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares. That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover. But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed. If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders. There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e215380be65e1d229d6662ffc05ffa45",
"text": "A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b07a4b217c94d673981374e4e7ced8",
"text": "This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "408604a92de5c1ef2ea8333597a02c7b",
"text": "\"A straddle is an options strategy in which one \"\"buys\"\" or \"\"sells\"\" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the \"\"buyer\"\" or \"\"seller\"\" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
799725027707cbec6f8924fc2b5103dd
|
Can I convert spread option into regular call or put?
|
[
{
"docid": "5f9b7c61ebc02bc82d019ad55370bd95",
"text": "Just so I'm clear- the end result is a long call, and you think the stock is going up. There is nothing wrong with that fundamentally. Be aware though: That's a negative theta trade. This means if your stock doesn't increase in price during the remaining time to expiration of your call option, the option will lose some of its value every day. It may still lose some of its value every day, depending on how much the stock price increases. The value of the call option just goes down and down as it approaches maturity, even if the stock price stays about the same. Being long a call (or a put) is a tough way to make money in the options market. I would suggest using an out-of-the-money butterfly spread. The potential returns are a bit less. However, this is a cheap positive theta trade so you avoid time decay on the value of the option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b40cfde36c298fa85ed57128325b279",
"text": "Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing. But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b",
"text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f4bf639d29f1e4ac74430e2fb5c3c6",
"text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1a98051b627a029a57786061576c51",
"text": "\"Options have legitimate uses as a way of hedging a bet, but in the hands of anyone but an expert they're gambling, not investing. They are EXTREMELY volatile compared to normal stocks, and are one of the best ways to lose your shirt in the stock market yet invented. How options actually work is that you're negotiating a promise that, at some future date or range of dates, they will let you purchase some specific number of shares (call), or they will let you sell them that number of shares (put), at a price specified in the option contract. The price you pay (or are paid) to obtain that contract depends on what the option's seller thinks the stock is likely to be worth when it reaches that date. (Note that if you don't already own the shares needed to back up a put option, you're promising to pay whatever it takes to buy those shares so you can sell them at the agreed upon price.) Note that by definition you're betting directly against experts, as opposed to a normal investment where you're usually trying to ride along with the experts. You are claiming that you can predict the future value of the stock better than they can, and that you will make a profit (on the difference between the value locked in by the option and the actual value at that time) which exceeds the cost of purchasing the option in the first place. Let me say that again: the option's price will have been set based on an expert's opinion of what the stock is likely to do in that time. If they think that it's really likely to be up $10 per share when the option comes due (really unlikely for a $20 stock!!!), they will try to charge you almost $10 per share to purchase the option at the current price. \"\"Almost\"\" because you're giving them a guaranteed profit now and assuming all the risk. If they're less sure it will go up that much, you'll pay less for the option -- but again, you're giving them hard money now and betting that you can predict the probabilities better than they can. Unless you have information that the experts don't have -- in which case you're probably committing insider trading -- this is a very hard bet to win. And it can be extremely misleading, since the price during the option period may cross back and forth over the \"\"enough that you'll make a profit\"\" line many times. Until you actually commit to exercising the option or not, that's all imaginary money which may vanish the next minute. Unless you are willing and able to invest pro-level resources in this, you'd probably get better odds in Atlantic City, and definitely get better odds in Las Vegas. If you don't see the sucker at the poker table, he's sitting in your seat. And betting against the guy who designed and is running the game is usually Not a Good Idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b6da6db0482f0c3ee1f3176632c122c",
"text": "I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "241ae4fde73f0f60740f5d3d9ffd7fb9",
"text": "\"Whether or not you make money here depends on whether you are buying or selling the option when you open your position. You certainly would not make money in the scenario where you are buying options at the open. If fact you would end up loosing quite a lot of money. You do not specify whether you are buying or selling the options, so let's assume that you are buying both the call and the put. We'll look a profitable trade at the bottom of my answer. Buying an in-the-money Call option with a strike price of $90 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a small fraction over $6000 = (100 x $60) since the intrinsic value value of the option is $60. Add to this cost any commission charged by your broker. Buying an out-of-the-money Put option with a strike price of $110 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a \"\"small\"\" premium - lets say a premium of something like $0.50. The option has no intrinsic value, only time value and a volatility value, so the exact cost would depend on the time to expiry and the implied volatility of the underlying asset. Since the strike price is \"\"well out of the money\"\", being about 27% below the underlying asset price, the premium would be small. So, assuming the premium of $0.50, you would pay $50 for the option plus any commission applicable. The cash settlement on expiry, with an underlying settlement price of $100, would be a premium of $10 for each of the two options, so you would receive cash of 100 x ($10 + $10) = $2000, less any commission applicable. However, you have paid $6000 + $50 to purchase the options, so you realise a net loss of $6050 - $2000 = $4050 plus any commissions applicable. Thus, you would make a profit on the put option, but you would realise a very large loss on the call option. On the other hand, if you open your position by selling the call option and buying the put option, then you would make money. For the sale of the call option you would receive about $6000. For the purchase of the put option you would pay about $50. On settlement, you would pay $1000 to buy back the call option and you would receive about $1000 when selling the put option. Thus you net profit would be about ($6000 - $1000) for the call position, and ($1000 - $50) for the put position. The net profit would then total $5950 less an commissions payable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b3223e6c6ae497ac0cf50ce1b853081",
"text": "Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfaf99af9f23f157c7679b9c37110a1",
"text": "\"Figured it out. Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of \"\"buying power\"\" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts. So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered \"\"defined risk\"\" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup. This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited. So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01bc163dafeb74461141b9a95710d206",
"text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2843f0727becf25573f503842927fc",
"text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a19279ffae2f4db056a53ee0f972eae",
"text": "\"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "043403925d1b5a388d2882a62cad96ed",
"text": "An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1536c848cdd591d961acfde183d022a6",
"text": "\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \"\"in the money\"\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"",
"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": "388c7482b2633eb9ef23f43a18b04792",
"text": "\"No. The more legs you add onto your trade, the more commissions you will pay entering and exiting the trade and the more opportunity for slippage. So lets head the other direction. Can we make a simple, risk-free option trade, with as few legs as possible? The (not really) surprising answer is \"\"yes\"\", but there is no free lunch, as you will see. According to financial theory any riskless position will earn the risk free rate, which right now is almost nothing, nada, 0%. Let's test this out with a little example. In theory, a riskless position can be constructed from buying a stock, selling a call option, and buying a put option. This combination should earn the risk free rate. Selling the call option means you get money now but agree to let someone else have the stock at an agreed contract price if the price goes up. Buying the put option means you pay money now but can sell the stock to someone at a pre-agreed contract price if you want to do so, which would only be when the price declines below the contract price. To start our risk free trade, buy Google stock, GOOG, at the Oct 3 Close: 495.52 x 100sh = $49,552 The example has 100 shares for compatibility with the options contracts which require 100 share blocks. we will sell a call and buy a put @ contract price of $500 for Jan 19,2013. Therefore we will receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013, unless the options clearing system fails, because of say, global financial collapse, or war with Aztec spacecraft. According to google finance, if we had sold a call today at the close we would receive the bid, which is 89.00/share, or $8,900 total. And if we had bought a put today at the close we would pay the ask, which is 91.90/share, or $9190 total. So, to receive $50,000 for certain on Jan 19,2013 we could pay $49,552 for the GOOG stock, minus $8,900 for the money we received selling the call option, plus a payment of $9190 for the put option we need to protect the value. The total is $49,842. If we pay $49,842 today, plus execute the option strategy shown, we would have $50,000 on Jan 19,2013. This is a profit of $158, the options commissions are going to be around $20-$30, so in total the profit is around $120 after commissions. On the other hand, ~$50,000 in a bank CD for 12 months at 1.1% will yield $550 in similarly risk-free interest. Given that it is difficult to actually make these trades simultaneously, in practice, with the prices jumping all around, I would say if you really want a low risk option trade then a bank CD looks like the safer bet. This isn't to say you can't find another combination of stock and contract price that does better than a bank CD -- but I doubt it will ever be better by very much and still difficult to monitor and align the trades in practice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b75e930b98cb6c9e4b9a575ff5982ce1",
"text": "To Chris' comment, find out if the assignment commission is the same as the commission for an executed trade. If that does affect the profit, just let it expire. I've had spreads (buy a call, sell a higher strike call, same dates) so deep in the money, I just made sense to let both exercise at expiration. Don't panic if all legs ofthe trade don't show until Sunday or even Monday morning.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6e7bd0b66d1e4dd52b44875605d07354
|
Market Close Order
|
[
{
"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": "19b4cc4d6de16c1de1b3f8863affcb0b",
"text": "A stop-loss order becomes a market order when a trade has occurred at or below the trigger price you set when creating the order. This means that you could possibly end up selling some or all of your position at a price lower than your trigger price. For relatively illiquid securities your order may be split into transactions with several buyers at different prices and you could see a significant drop in price between the first part of the order and the last few shares. To mitigate this, brokers also offer a stop-limit order, where you set not only a trigger price, but also a minimum price that you are will to accept for your shares. This reduces the risk of selling at rock bottom prices, especially if you are selling a very large position. However, in the case of a flash crash where other sellers are driving the price below your limit, that part of your order may never execute and you could end up being stuck with a whole lot of shares that are worth less than both your stop loss trigger and limit price. For securities that are liquid and not very volatile, either option is a pretty safe way to cut your losses. For securities that are illiquid and/or very volatile a stop-limit order will prevent you from cashing out at bottom dollar and giving away a bargain to lurkers hanging out at the bottom of the market, but you may end up stuck with shares you don't want for longer than originally planned. It's up to you to decide which kind of risk you prefer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ca579a1d52fc5a986c5132394e6ff7b",
"text": "It depends on how you place your stop order and the type of stop orders available from your broker. If you place a stop market order and the following day the stock opens below your stop your stock will be stopped out at or around the opening price, meaning you can potentially end up with quite a large gap. If you place a stop limit order, say you place your stop at $10.00 with a limit price of $9.90, and if the price opens below $9.90, say at $9.50, your limit sell order of $9.90 will be placed onto the market but it will not be executed until the price goes back up to $9.90 or above. The third option is to place a Guaranteed Stop Loss, and as specified you are guaranteed your stop price even if the price gaps down below your stop price. You will be paying an extra fee for the Guaranteed Stop Loss Order, and they are usually mainly available with CFD Brokers (so if you are in the USA you might be out of luck).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8767fd8487c7fbf1fe4d78d52a38411b",
"text": "\"My broker offers the following types of sell orders: I have a strategy to sell-half of my position once the accrued value has doubled. I take into account market price, dividends, and taxes (Both LTgain and taxes on dividends). Once the market price exceeds the magic trigger price by 10%, I enter a \"\"trailing stop %\"\" order at 10%. Ideally what happens is that the stock keeps going up, and the trailing stop % keeps following it, and that goes on long enough that accrued dividends end up paying for the stock. What happens in reality is that the stock goes up some, goes down some, then the order gets cancelled because the company announces dividends or something dumb like that. THEN I get into trouble trying to figure out how to re-enter the order, maintaining the unrealized gain in the history of the trailing stop order. I screwed up and entered the wrong type of order once and sold stock I didn't want to. Lets look at an example. a number of years ago, I bought some JNJ -- a hundred shares at 62.18. - Accumulated dividends are 2127.75 - My spreadsheet tells me the \"\"double price\"\" is 104.54, and double + 10% is 116.16. - So a while ago, JNJ exceeded 118.23, and I entered a Trailing Stop 10% order to sell 50 shares of JNJ. The activation price was 106.41. - since then, the price has gone up and down... it reached a high of 126.07, setting the activation price at 113.45. - Then, JNJ announced a dividend, and my broker cancelled the trailing stop order. I've re-entered a \"\"Stop market\"\" order at 113.45. I've also entered an alert for $126.07 -- if the alert gets triggered, I'll cancel the Market Stop and enter a new trailing stop.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd25863c896820977eca451e4ac7e6ae",
"text": "It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4627e2e2e149b4cc2196a252bd34dbec",
"text": "\"if it opens below my limit order What exactly are you trying to achieve here? If your limit order is for 100 and the stock opens \"\"below\"\" your limit order, say 99, then it is obviously going to buy it automatically. also place a stop loss on the same order Most brokers allow limit + stop loss order at the same time on same order. What I conclude from your question is that you're with a broker that is using obscure technology. Get a better broker or maybe, retry phrasing your question correctly.\"",
"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": "76b3ed663f72d7d3a4b5b4f8254222b9",
"text": "This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them. Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0016f018e4656ea0b9eaa3555dd39a65",
"text": "\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \"\"fair\"\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\"",
"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": "bc948cfde0e1d4662142f3f88c5df161",
"text": "At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5775fcd5beb1fd715c83430a9b72b75a",
"text": "\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7438115dd136cd9ae0240180d5592f12",
"text": "In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2323f60dcf6807c1151a04b0999014a",
"text": "\"You can place the orders like you suggested. This would be useful in a market that is moving quickly where you want to be reasonably sure of execution but don't want the full exposure of a market order. This won't jump your spot in the queue though in the sense that you won't get ahead of other orders that are \"\"ready\"\" for execution just because you have crossed the spread aggressively.\"",
"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": "97e65970f20cad08d3fe6ee5ebb651e8",
"text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[*] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [*] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5fabe6e9d1a2647fdb2905e7c990eda
|
Who puts out buy/sell orders during earnings reports or other scheduled relevant information?
|
[
{
"docid": "110710efac10f8b3154b85495008e946",
"text": "The early bird catches the worm. The first person who makes use of the information gains! That is why hedge funds pay billions of dollars to place their routers right at the center of wall street. Moreover, the information is not always correct. The article you are reading may be a rumor spread by someone on wall street.Then there is speculation and that is factored into the price. For example:- In spite of all the bad news from Greece, the market still continued to rise. This was because, everyone had an idea about what was going to happen and the price was factored in way before Greece actually defaulted. The game is way more complicated than it seems. If everyone sat down and read reports, opportunities to make millions of dollars would have been lost in those few seconds. (Please note:- I do not mean reading reports is bad)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3ae22710c80a01cf0fa6319f8862dcff",
"text": "Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears. Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21",
"text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "57c412fe4c06eb13496ba96739bf6d9f",
"text": "No, there is no such list, as the other answers mention it is practically impossible to compile one. However you can see the institutional investors of a public company. MSN Money has this information available in a fair amount of details. For example see the Institutional Investors of GOOG",
"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": "74e2c96f13609480976f3f06d82cf542",
"text": "These sales were not part of their 10b5-1 pre-scheduled trading plans. They occurred after the cyber attack was discovered but before the attack was made public. I see 3 f-cking idiots going to jail for insider trading. And say bye-bye too all of the money gained by the options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3df873e2c35947a0dea12b229e1a6b2",
"text": "The NYSE holidays are listed online here: https://www.nyse.com/markets/hours-calendars",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a708ffe12cffb35fe9351333386cd171",
"text": "They mostly make money off of the spread between your order and the spread of the buy and sell currently in the market. As others have previously explained, their buy/sell spreads are a little lacklustre.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cecb611496cca6b62da8005849636d21",
"text": "You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D.",
"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": "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": "8464ec00bb93cce30fd1c641eb28b6a6",
"text": "\"Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the \"\"Gray Market\"\" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB. From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO. Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether. Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs. Grey Sheets is also Home to delisted stocks from other markets. Some stocks on this financial market were once traded on the NASDAQ, OTCBB, or the Pink Sheets but ran into serious misfortune - usually financial - and thus failed to meet the minimum requirements of the registered SEC filings and/or stock exchange regulations for a financial market. Such stocks were delisted or removed and may begin trading on the Grey Sheets. So to answer your question, I think the cause of the wild swings is that: Great question, BTW.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad7c351cacf62d86d12f2a96d703e40",
"text": "Just got back from the office, so I can better answer it now. The trader uses the Metatrader platform, which is programmed with a language based off C++. I'm working with him to update some algos now. His strategies running on ToS are more or less proof-of-concept that he streams right now as he sources investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45aaf754b277715c534239e40d20050a",
"text": "To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aab0cecae7099a71bdc68ccaebd454a",
"text": "\"http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/goldman0424.pdf \"\"At the heart of Goldman Sachs‘ sales and trading business is our role as a ―market maker.‖ As a market maker, the firm stands ready, willing and able to buy and sell financial instruments at the initiation of our clients. Goldman Sachs‘ clients expect the firm to do so, regardless of whether the other side of a transaction has been identified or is readily available. \"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
97741e4eaed516296fb59c7caac46c81
|
How do you calculate the P/E ratio by industry?
|
[
{
"docid": "61365a9bee6d9911a16ce51eecbbaf4c",
"text": "You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry. Average P/E ratio of industry = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in Industry / Number of companies in industry",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "af49ec901f6c1437fa997bf88b1346ad",
"text": "\"Calculating beta is finding the correlation between the dependent variable, MSCI world benchmark, and the independent variable, your companies. If you know how to run liner regression models, run each company as the independent variable with the dependent MSCI. You can use Excel to gather this result (Y = MSCI price change at closing hour while X = company stock price closing prince). Running the regression will give you the Beta (and alpha when doing portfolios); which (from linear algebra) is the \"\"m\"\" in y = mx + b\"",
"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": "1423a5b34e0ba05d007a623a2b02f8ec",
"text": "To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf8488ef41130233fcc63a7b933a6fdf",
"text": "So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249",
"text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf8fbb6297344fa58d97ad8831b11ca",
"text": "Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation. The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344",
"text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "7e2e68179cb7715afc6b734828b30557",
"text": "PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443",
"text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "955455502d9a711735c3029de66b96ca",
"text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0adb3fdabed361261d5cea1a20e2cffd",
"text": "One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9406028ce6a27af7fd82102c45e62517
|
Is capturing a loss a unique opportunity?
|
[
{
"docid": "4925a42610d9d45797fcb67ad5c8a122",
"text": "I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d015bb7fb08fc382d9aa62e25c1b767a",
"text": "It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "650d13866eec153909006378708fb75b",
"text": "\"You've described the process fairly well. It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components, its intrinsic value (\"\"in the money\"\") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4",
"text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e96dd8b815036db335e1e2920e91435",
"text": "True but it isn't too difficult . Perhaps a classic example would be Sony - 5 years losses , this last year US$1.1B , how long can it last ?! However the trick is not to initially concentrate on the corporates but to concentrate on the small to medium sized companies and to ensure that they are strategically placed engineering wise to step in and take over . Business wise they will be used to adapting quickly .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52981c665fee7c5690b99f2b7cb7e0d2",
"text": "The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that. A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4b0cff3e13cb4f5bf4142ca6be722e",
"text": "\"I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit \"\"on average.\"\" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more \"\"costly\"\" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb5e9815faf7113e06c057aa15dd3c3e",
"text": "\"As long as the losing business is not considered \"\"passive activity\"\" or \"\"hobby\"\", then yes. Passive Activity is an activity where you do not have to actively do anything to generate income. For example - royalties or rentals. Hobby is an activity that doesn't generate profit. Generally, if your business doesn't consistently generate profit (the IRS looks at 3 out of the last 5 years), it may be characterized as hobby. For hobby, loss deduction is limited by the hobby income and the 2% AGI threshold.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2502f030fa961b4e3a9fc48d7cbecae3",
"text": "Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0246968edf70ab6aa0e2c0c489c80dcc",
"text": "It is true that it may be somewhat of a loss. I would not lose any money with the other options as I have already made my money back but I would be at a loss as far as time investment goes. I agree number 1 is most logical but emotionally my heart is just not in it anymore that is why I put 2 and 3 in there too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "329675bf2c9692f2f78d55243aa4920e",
"text": "\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794",
"text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c",
"text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0a822e90da03f08e77430b4a587980",
"text": "\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c97ee4d736684a28ad22e6d03a7610",
"text": "\"I'd like to modify the \"\"loss\"\" idea that's been mentioned in the other two answers. I don't think a retail location needs to be losing money to be a candidate for sale. Even if a retail location is not operating at a loss, there may be incentive to sell it off to free up cash for a better-performing line of business. Many large companies have multiple lines of business. I imagine Sunoco makes money a few ways including: refining the gas and other petroleum products, selling those petroleum products, selling gas wholesale to franchised outlets or other large buyers, licensing their brand to franchised outlets, selling gas and convenience items direct to consumers through its own corporate-owned retail outlets, etc. If a company with multiple lines of business sees a better return on investment in certain businesses, it may make sense to sell off assets in an under-performing business in order to free up the capital tied up by that business, and invest the freed-up capital in another business likely to perform better. So, even \"\"money making\"\" assets are sometimes undesirable relative to other, better performing assets. Another case in which it makes sense to sell an asset that is profitable is when the market is over-valuing it. Sell it dear, and buy it back cheap later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
70900f7d78c37f05f187b5f7c0a8f4fc
|
How to value employee benefits?
|
[
{
"docid": "ae7be7cb6cef755a474a988aa6536040",
"text": "To fairly compare a comp-only job to a job that offers insurance, get a quote for health insurance. Call your local insurance broker and find out what it would cost. Because if you aren't getting insurance from your employer, you'll have to get it elsewhere. If you get a quote on an HSA, don't forget to add in the annual deductible as part of the cost. On the ESPP, I'd count it as zero. The rationale being that so much of your financial status is tied to your employer that you don't really want to tie up too much more in company stock. (I.e. Company hits hard times, stock tanks, and then they lay you off. Double whammy -- both your assets and income.) But given that I've only been employed by companies that no longer exist in their original form, my perspective may be warped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "727f9d5e9d8d2eeb662eb94345ef72a2",
"text": "It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6415381eba61027f7d98941ad81ef79",
"text": "Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd0d213ba6bad508c090fa5e0b2dca4",
"text": "Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dd530eb03f6f9993467b837d0b004b44",
"text": "\"sorry mate, its not about being loyal. it's about what you negotiate. you stay with a company long enough and you'll only rack up your annual 2% pay increase and see minor raises until you're promoted to incompetence. If you really want to see healthy compensation than you need to realize it's about negotiating to your true value to the market - not just join a company and cross your fingers for the best. Frankly, if someone is willing to pay more ($$ and other benefits) then you'd do yourself and those you support a disservice not going for it. There are times when you should be less aggressive about it for the long haul, but don't forget, a company's job is to turn a profit which means getting workers to work at the lowest possible salary. And when a corporation thinks someone is \"\"loyal\"\" and won't move, then a smart company will go ahead and test that assumption. Re: entry level expectations about their true value - absolutely agree, expect entry compensation. But don't think being \"\"loyal\"\" is what changes that. Only increasing your actual value does - not just because you've been around forever.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deadd2ee49ae396eaa2f340a6c7beb6a",
"text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"",
"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": "690784b8dd4cbe158f63b27de02ff410",
"text": "Cat has always had plants in IL. HQ is in Peoria (grew up there, several members of my family work for them), and plants all over the place. Canada probably had other things going against it at the time they pulled out. Depending on the timing, it's quite likely that the exchange rate had shifted such that, even without a raise, the workers were effectively costing the company considerably more. Articles like that seem to leave out all sorts of details. For instance, I only saw one point where salary was increased and it wasn't anywhere near a 60% increase - more like 15% which isn't entirely unheard of. There's also what looks like a one time cash payment - bonus for a good year. 3-4x salary isn't unheard of in executive bonus land. It's also highly variable and not guaranteed year to year. The rest would be in stocks and options. The trick there is that the amounts of those were probably determined when he signed his contract. The reason it makes for a big raise is because the stock price has gone up (though it's down nearly 20% over the last month - May kinda sucked for the stock market). You also need to look at whether the profits are higher because of higher volume (and possibly more workers), better margins, better deployment of capital, etc. And when there's talk about asking worker to pay more for their health care, is it more as a raw dollar amount, or more as a percentage of the health care costs. As to whacking defined benefit pensions -- personally, I'd rather have a 401k. The problem with defined benefit pensions is that you're tied to that company for life. Put in your 40 years and then retire with 80% pay or whatever it is. Leave after 4 or 5 and you've pretty much got nothing - with a 401k, leave after 4 or 5 and you have what you've put away + what the company matched.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be2ff4e65e7dd0fcf04b23b870b005c8",
"text": "\"All things being equal, a defined benefit pension is far better than an IRA or a 401(k). Think about it this way - let's say you can have a guaranteed $100 a month*, or the chance at $100 a month. Which is better? Now, obviously, your tolerance for risk is the difference - but this is the beauty of a defined benefit plan. Your employer is picking up the risk. Assuming that the pool of investments is about the same (which unless if their funds are tremendously under performing they are), the question is, who takes the risk - you or them? Especially if you are moving into a new position, having a defined benefit plan is like having a risk-free asset in your portfolio. It increases your safety. The only reason to roll this over into a 401(k) or IRA is if your expected value (risk * payout) is better. A worked example. If half the time you would earn more than $100 and half the time less, then you could imagine the two as being equally good. Only if you really love risk would you take that chance. In reality, only half the investments out there will \"\"beat\"\" the average, and as such, you actually have less than a 50/50 shot of beating a DB - unless if there are really low returns to it. More likely, I suspect you are over-estimating your ability to get a higher return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "047a5a59392e187e64af7fb96e1a105f",
"text": "\"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of \"\"you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare\"\" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5bdf9d528d9d22037096d1248682550",
"text": "There is some magic involved in that calculation, because what health insurance is worth to you is not necessarily the same it is worth for the employer. Two examples that illustrate the extreme ends of the spectrum: let's say you or a family member have a chronic or a serious illness, especially if it is a preexisting condition - for instance, cancer. In that case, health insurance can be worth literally millions of dollars to you. Even if you are a diabetic, the value of health insurance can be substantial. Sometimes, it could even make financial sense in that case to accept a very low-paying job. On the other extreme of the scale, if you are very young and healthy, many people decide to forego insurance. In that case, the value of health insurance can be as little as the penalty (usually, 2% of your taxable income, I believe).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa344665605b817b56cbb03045fbfb56",
"text": "\"Not if they're unfunded and the company goes under, they don't. And more accurately, defined benefit plans have (perceived) value only to people who don't have the first clue how to soundly invest their own retirement funds - Which admittedly means \"\"almost everyone\"\". But TANSTAAFL - Even the rare pension plan that is fully funded and soundly invested will *still* tend to underpeform the market as a whole. If you really want to lock in a sub-5% return, just sink your entire retirement into whole-life annuities and you can gleefully call it a \"\"pension\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8b413ac5350b149280bf7267b6012d0",
"text": "I agree that to take the money from the defined benefit plan you are saying that you can get a better return than the plan. You are taking all the risk if you take the lump sum. But there are two more risks that you are taking by keeping the money in the plan even though you are decades from retirement. Funding risk: companies and state/city/county governments have underfunded their pension programs due to budget pressure. In some cases they have skipped payments when the market was good, because they felt they were ahead of their obligations. They also delayed or skipped contributions when they had a budget shortfall, and wanted to not end the government/company fiscal year in the red. The risk is that they can get so far behind that they change their promises to current and former employees. This was one of the issues with the city of Detroit this year. Bankruptcy: even though their are guarantees regarding pension benefits, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does set a maximum benefit. If the company goes bankrupt or the plan is terminated you might not get all the money you were expecting. While the chances of taking a haircut generally impacts people who have a long career, because they are entitled to a large benefit, it can impact people who don't expect it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3c0944e9e65e420b692ee0e47cded0d",
"text": "As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.",
"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": "f6f1061862d29930fecfddd11df34c74",
"text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "119d3174cd9bd0cf75e16baa4c33db53",
"text": "\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \"\"standard\"\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bff6cd7047ca4577a71b8922e71219c",
"text": "First let's define some terms. Your accrued benefit is a monthly benefit payable at your normal retirement age (usually 65). It is usually a life-only benefit but may have a number of years guaranteed or may have a survivor piece. It is defined by a plan formula (ie, it is a defined benefit). A lump sum is how much that accrued benefit is worth right now. Lump sums are based on applicable interest rates and mortality tables specified by the IRS (interest rates are released monthly, mortality annually). Your plan can either use the same interest rates for a whole year, or they can use new ones each month. Affecting your lump sum is whether your accrued benefit is payable now (immediately, you are age 65), or later (deferred, you are now age 30). For example, instead of being paid an annuity assume you are paid just one payment of $1,000 on your 65th birthday. The lump sum of that for a 65 year old would be $1,000 since there would be no interest discount, and no chance of dying before payment. For a 30 year old, at 4% interest the lump sum would be about $237 (including mortality discount). At age 36 the lump sum is $246. So the lump sum will get bigger just because you get older. Very important is the interest discount. At age 30 in the example, 2% interest would produce a $467 lump sum. And at 6% $122. The bigger the rate, the smaller the lump sum because interest helps an amount now grow bigger in the future. To complicate things, since 2008 the IRS bases lump sums on 3 different interest rates. The monthy annuity payments made within 5 years of the lump sum date use the 1st rate, past 5 and within 20 years use the 2nd rate, and past that use the 3rd rate. Since you are age 30, all of your monthly annuity payments would be made after 20 years, so that makes it simple since we'll only have to look at the 3rd rate. When you reach age 45 the 2nd rate will kick in. Here is the table of interest rates published by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Minimum-Present-Value-Segment-Rates You'll find your rates above on the 2013 line for Aug-12. That means your lump sum is being made in 2013 and it is being based on the month August 2012. Most likely your plan will use the same rates for its entire plan year. But what is your plan year? If it is the calendar year, then you would have a 5 month lookback for the rates. But if is a September to August plan year with a 1 month lookback, the rates would have changed between August and September. Your August lump sum would be based on 4.52%, your September on would be based on 5.58% (see the All line for Aug-13). For comparison, a 30 year old with a $100 annuity payable at age 65 would have a lump sum value of $3,011 at 4.52%, but a lump sum value of $1,931 at 5.58%. The change in your accrued benefit by month will obviously have some impact on the lump sum value, but not as much as the change in interest rates if there is one. The amount they actually contribute to the plan has nothing to do with the value of the lump sum though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f047a86a26ffe9decad612ab2b5ed4e0",
"text": "Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
202d6ac42c0de67511a2a6cfa7b9465c
|
How to use a stop and limit order together?
|
[
{
"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": "2fc4ee9e12e4353a544f3900a289fa40",
"text": "Market orders can be reasonably safe when dealing with stocks that are rather liquid and have quite low volatility. But it's important to note that you're trading a large degree of control over your buy / sell price for a small benefit in speed or complexity of entering an order. I always use limit orders as they help me guard against unexpected moves of the stock. Patience and attention to details are good qualities to have as an investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a77c6d93242d3549ed0f2d1f372c38d7",
"text": "\"Always use limit orders never market orders. Period. Do that and you will always pay what you said you would when the transaction goes through. Whichever broker you use is not going to \"\"negotiate\"\" for the best price on your trade if you choose a market order. Their job is to fill that order so they will always buy it for more than market and sell it for less to ensure the order goes through. It is not even a factor when choosing between TradeKing and Scottrade. I use Trade King and my friend uses ScottTrade. Besides the transaction fee (TK is a few $$ cheaper), the only other things to consider are the tools and research (and customer service if you need it) that each site offers. I went with TK and the lower transaction fee since tools and research can be had from other sources. I basically only use it when I want to make a trade since I don't find the tools particularly useful and I never take an analyst's opinion of a stock at face value anyway since everybody always has their own agenda.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2272a5d2f2b5c88cf72bfd3066ffabc1",
"text": "It will depend largely on your broker what type of stop and trailing stop orders they provide. Saying that, I have not come across any brokers yet that offer limit orders with trailing stop orders. Unlike a standard stop order where you can either make it a market stop order or a limit stop order, usually most brokers have trailing stop orders as market orders only, where you can either set the trailing stop to be a dollar value or percentage from the most recent high. Remember also, that trailing stop orders will be based on the intra-day highs and not the highest closing price. That means that if the share price spikes up during the day your trailing stop will move up, and if the price then spikes down you may be stopped out prematurely, after which the price might rally again. For this reason I try to base my trailing stops on the highest closing price by using standard stop loss orders and moving it up manually after the close of trade if the share price has closed at a new high. This takes a few minutes each evening (depending on how many stocks you have to check and adjust the stops for) but gives you more control. Using this method will also enable you to set limit orders attached to your stop loss triggers, and you won't have to keep your trailing too close to the last high price thus potentially causing you to get stopped out prematurely. Slightly off track but may be handy if you set profit targets, my broker has recently introduced Trailing Take Profit Orders. The way it works is, say you have a profit target of 50%, so you buy at $2 and want to take profits if the price reaches $3, you could set your Trailing Take Profit Trigger at say $3.10 or above and set a Trail by Amount of say $0.10. So if the price after hitting $3.10 falls to $3.00 you will be stopped out and collect your profits. If the price moves up to $3.30 and then falls to $3.20, you will be stopped out at $3.20 and make some extra profits. If the price continues going up the Trailing Take Profit will continue to move up always $0.10 below the highest price reached. I think this would be a very useful order if you were range trading where you could set the Trailing Take Profit trigger near recent resistance so you can get out if prices start reversing at or around the resistance, but continue profiting if the price breaks through the resistance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff486ed7898d24d0f4abea2a936f1c3",
"text": "\"One trick is to make all purchases end in a particular number of your choosing, say \"\"3\"\". From now on, all restaurant meals,gas purchases, and anything in your control, end them in 3. When you glance at the bill, you can skip these charges, and look carefully at the rest. It's not 100%, as you couldn't easily impact supermarket charges and many others, but it's half of my routine charges.\"",
"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": "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": "2fd70c5b0bc26e33fe0f83b981d66cef",
"text": "I don't think user4358's explanation is correct. A trailing LIT Sell Order adjusts downwards, i.e. if you place the order with an Aux price (in TWS it's trigger price) of 105.00 and a trailing amount of 6.00 then, assuming the ask is 100.00, TWS will add the trailing amount to the ask price and if it's less than the trigger price it will adjust. So in my example, if the market (ask) goes straight up to 105.00, nothing will be adjusted, the trigger is touched and the limit order will be placed (see below). If on the the other hand the market goes down to 99.00 then trlng amt + ask is 105.00, if it goes further down to 98.00 then the trigger price will be adjusted to 104.00 (because it's less than the current trigger), and so on. For the LIT part you have either an absolute limit price you can enter, or you have an offset limit which will be subtracted from the trigger price, in which case it is adjusted as well. So back to my example, the trigger is now 104.00 and the limit offset is say 1.00, so my limit order would be placed at 103.00 if the ask ever touches 104.00, and that in turn is only visible if the bid touches 103.00 (because it's limit-if-touched). For a buy just use the same explanation with some swapped roles, the trigger price adjust upwards when the trailing amount plus bid is larger than the current trigger, and the limit offset will be added to the trigger price. Edit Also quite succinct and worth having a look at: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/orders/trailingLimitTouched.php Guesswork, highly subjective As for why this might be good, well, you have to believe in momentum strategies, i.e. a market that goes down, will continue to go down, if you believe that and you believe in mean reversion as well, then a trailing limit order can assist you in not buying/selling impulsively, but closer to the mean. I've never used it that way though. What I have done, even just now to get the explanation right, is to place trailing buy and sell orders simultaneously. You will find that you can just go in with coarse estimates and because the adjustments will go towards each other, you will end up with a narrowing band of trigger prices (as opposed to trailing stop orders which will give you a widening band of trigger prices). If you believe in overshooting and equilibria then this can be one easy way to profit from it. I've just sold EURUSD for 1.26420 and bought it back at 1.26380 with a trailing amount of 5pips and a limit offset of 2pips within the time of writing this.",
"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": "84811644ad5a79a379e85536a5c30424",
"text": "Hello All, I have a question regarding Stop-Loss Orders. So Bechtle AG announced it would be gifting bonus shares to existing [shareholders](http://www.nasdaq.com/article/bechtle-to-issue-bonus-shares-share-capital-to-double--quick-facts-20170714-00084) , in mid July. Everyone owning a Bechtle stock got a free stock, effectively owning 2. This brought down the stock from roundabout 120 to about 60 . I was wondering, if I would have had a stop-loss order on a Bechtle stock, would this [50%](https://www.google.com/finance?q=ETR:BC8) drop have triggered my stop-loss order?",
"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": "918e6778d512aaca7c4e49d5715759e1",
"text": "Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above. If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0bb8278cfb04111bbbfe44a22495ccc",
"text": "To answer your question in its entirety there's more information we need (exchange, session, traded security, order type, etc.). Most exchanges support partial fills, that is your order will be partially executed and modified. In your example, you'd get an execution of 10 shares at $100, and your order ticket will be modified to $100 for 990 shares. Like John Bensin explained, there are ways to prevent partial filling through order modifiers (e.g. Fill-or-Kill). My addition here is, there are also ways to prevent the other bit, i.e. do the partial fill but don't keep a modified order in the system. You'd have to mark the order Immediate-or-Cancel (IoC). In your case you'd be partially filled (10 @$100) and that's it. For the remaining 990 shares you'd have to enter a new order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ecc559805b43e2987fe28d3406698f",
"text": "Because in the case for 100/101, if you wanted to placed a limit buy order at top of the bid list you would place it at 101 and get filled straight away. If placing a limit buy order at the top of 91 (for 90/98) you would not get filled but just be placed at the top of the list. You might get filled at a lower price if an ask comes in matching your bid, however you might never get filled. In regards to market orders, with the 100/101 being more liquid, if your market order is larger than the orders at 101, then the remainder of your order should still get filled at only a slightly higher price. In regards to market orders with the 90/98, being less liquid, it is likely that only part of your order gets filled, and any remained either doesn't get filled or gets filled at a much higher price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57cc72325f692606cefed8455ea59b62",
"text": "You will lose out on your spread, you always pay a spread. Also, if you are looking at a strategy for using stop losses, try taking into account the support lines if you are going long. So, if the stock is on an upward trend but is dropping back from profit taking, your best best is to take a position closest to the next support line. You place your stop just below the support. this will give you the best chance of a winning position as most technical analysts will have looking towards the support as a buy back area. Obviously, in a bear market the opposite is true. If you have taken your position and the market move past the first resistance line, then bring your stop to just below that line as once resistance is broken, it then becomes support. You then have a profitable position with profit locked in. Leave the position to break the next resistance and repeat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "300534729fce0e38becececa82ae97be",
"text": "Think of all the limit orders waiting in line, first organized by price, and then by the time the order was placed (earlier orders are closer to the front of the line). In order for your buy order to trade, there must be no other limit orders of 10.01 or higher, or the sellers order would have matched with them instead. So once your order is filled, the price is 10.00, even if just for a millisecond, because there was a trade at 10.00, even though the price might go right back up after the trade.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4316f0ae18263dcfb8c74cd6c660bbc5
|
Covered call and put options as separate trades
|
[
{
"docid": "fd46aa9ae5664fcf062195f4dc230bcc",
"text": "Yes, if the call expires worthless, leaving you with stock. Then you can exercise your put when the stock goes below put strike price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "78fb7b54077f8e66ce9097b1568768b3",
"text": "So this is only a useful strategy if you already own the stock and want protection. The ITM put has a delta closer to 1 than an OTM put. But all LEAPS have massive amounts of theta. Since the delta is closer to 1 it will mimic the price movements of the underlying which has a delta of 1. And then you can sell front month calls on that over time. Note, this strategy will tie up a large amount of capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9ed8d204d91a4d492322f8b343b568",
"text": "I understand what you're asking for (you want to write options ON call options... essentially the second derivative of the underlying security), and I've never heard of it. That's not to say it doesn't exist (I'm sure some investment banker has cooked something like this up at some point), but if it does exist, you wouldn't be able to trade it as easily as you can a put or a LEAP. I'm also not sure you'd actually want to buy such a thing - the amount of leverage would be enormous, and you'd need a massive amount of margin/collateral. Additionally, a small downward movement in the stock price could wipe out the entire value of your option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "408604a92de5c1ef2ea8333597a02c7b",
"text": "\"A straddle is an options strategy in which one \"\"buys\"\" or \"\"sells\"\" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the \"\"buyer\"\" or \"\"seller\"\" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7561cd17187999bcde78f7e21faf1ff",
"text": "If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply. A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price. Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day.",
"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": "f4ea07c1d545d71f26856ad9d46c4ed8",
"text": "Outside of software that can calculate the returns: You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.) Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive",
"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": "42f4705784c34d846e33a6b4573f63af",
"text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e1c1d248918ff767562b5549d2a3218",
"text": "\"According to Yahoo, AAPL was trading at $113.26 at 1:10 PM on 11/13/15, which is the approximate time of your option quote. You provided a quote for AAPL at 4:15, and the stock happened to keep going down most of the that afternoon. To make a sensible comparison, you need to take contemporary prices on both the stock and the option. The quote on the option also shows the \"\"price\"\" being outside of the bid-ask range, which suggests that the option was trading thinly and that the last price occurred sometime earlier in the day. If you use a price in the bid-ask range ($21.90-$22.30) and use the price of AAPL at the time of the put quote, you'll come up with a price that's much closer to your expectation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "325b30fb598f679f0d3dc954b0dbdfdf",
"text": "I have an example of a trade I made some time ago. By entering the position as a covered call, I was out of pocket $5.10, and if the stock traded flat, i.e. closed at the same $7.10 16 months hence, I was up 39% or nearly 30%/yr. As compared to the stock holder, if the stock fell 28%, I'd still break even, vs his loss of 28%. Last, if the stock shot up, I'd get 7.50/5.10 or a 47% return, vs the shareholder who would need a price of $10.44 to reflect that return. Of course, a huge jump in the shares, say to $15, would benefit the option buyer, and I would have left money on the table. But this didn't happen. The stock was at $8 at expiration, and I got my 47% return. The option buyer got 50 cents for his $2 bet. Note, the $2 option price reflected a very high implied volatility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3504646177c81bd2ab7056d0a1b40547",
"text": "In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this. For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account. I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction. On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a091e982cfd5c97e5955bc196171bad",
"text": "Do you need to buy car insurance? If you do, you are buying to open a put option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a579327e1a43b14f841a4286b39ac597",
"text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7c14786c176cbd17c34e31ecd9fd51",
"text": "Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying. However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account. I don't know why...probably a legal reason. You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account. If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "799d339b75df75e0c39a773a2f6b4990",
"text": "Being long something is the same as owning it (generally). Being short something is the same as selling it, with the intention (actually obligation) of buying it back in the future. Being 'short' means that you benefit when the price falls. A call is the right to buy a financial asset, most often a share, at some price agreed upon now, while the the right extends for some defined time into the future. A put is the right to sell something you already own for some price defined now but the right extends for some period into the future. A swaption is an option to enter into a swap. A swap is an agreement to trade cash-flows at defined points in the future, usually some fixed rate for some floating rate (say LIBOR+200bps). EDIT: Clarified puts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3883e44377972da8861b8d0a09acb0c1
|
What does investment bank risk during IPO?
|
[
{
"docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088",
"text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b872a6d02dd992b30960d6d7e9b2b31",
"text": "\"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ba6acbc9647ce3489c4578930493d383",
"text": "Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164",
"text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d",
"text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c372d42ad4cbdb97645e1f11384d9124",
"text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24e225892d3fc3dcb86b94cf231fc880",
"text": "There could be an impact on Facebook because just before the IPO, Morgan Stanley apparently sent information to selected clients that their analysts had just lowered their valuation of the company. There were also reports yesterday that the lowered valuation came about because Facebook sent some revised preliminary estimates of second quarter earnings (showing lower than expected earnings) to Morgan Stanley, and least one talking head said that Facebook might also face charges depending on what the cover letters and the e-mails back and forth between Facebook and Morgan Stanley said. Investigations have already been opened. Yes, a company wants to sell the stock being offered at the IPO at the highest price possible, but if it misled the public when offering the stock for sale (through its underwriters), it can also be liable, possibly even criminally liable. Material added in Edit: In fact, a lawsuit has already been filed in the US District Court in Manhattan in this matter. Whether the SEC ever does anything about the matter remains to be seen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1ae446b6658b9fd7ddafba5ac736a69",
"text": "In and of itself it wasn't. But could the ill will it left with the general investing public make people more wary of future IPOs and thus, lower their potential starting points? Thereby leading to a drought of IPOs as companies don't see themselves getting as much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8d7639e01902ca28754028bcf23657d",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cb7be283c0e2e14369c48b9b3020acf",
"text": "\"The \"\"risk\"\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e4095d42a193b554e513a451e5dc91b",
"text": "The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8ec0cc6cf3c726041c5ae43fb00288a",
"text": "I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70281c94fd300d4a6ec0f4228e10ae86",
"text": "There would be small generic risk that the company stock goes down real fast by more than 15% in a specific event to the company [fraud, segment company operates suffers a shock, etc] or a generic event to the stock market like recent events of Greece etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94",
"text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505",
"text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12da69444091327807a68231ca099ad8",
"text": "\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c0418d8ab15cfc19f66cea6800e42c5",
"text": "I don't completely have GIPS down, risk management still gets me on some questions, and alternative investments is fucking me a bit. Any of the IPS questions will be iffy because I'm not good at paying attention to detail in the prompts. On the other hand, I memorized the micro and global attribution formulas so I'm hoping for a lot of questions on that shit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
531eba7862ba78aad50171f2f16c4170
|
How to calculate 1 share movement
|
[
{
"docid": "b17badf725c241c03f061a9db2a96bff",
"text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "008a497ad9c98d5e2cc27a2cebf27993",
"text": "Unless other people believe you have a reason for selling at a lower price, your sale probably has no lasting effect at all on the market. Of course, if people see you dump a few million dollars' worth of shares at a discount, they may be inclined to believe you have a reason. But if you just sell a few, they will conclude the reason is just that you needed cash in a hurry.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "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": "c9e6b039d5ab2e479f5befaba52149c0",
"text": "\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30c72cf08aece2888aa325bdcd8d2538",
"text": "\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d710ce4d7a4275036f7b4a3cce5a07e",
"text": "\"The best place to start looking is the companies \"\"Balance Sheet\"\" (B/S). This would show you the total shares \"\"outstanding.\"\" The quarterly B/S's arent audited but a good starting point. To use in any quant method, You also need to look a growth the outstanding shares number. Company can issue shares to any employee without making a filing. Also, YOU will NEVER know exactly the total number because of stock options that are issued to employees that are out of the money arent account for. Some companies account for these, some dont. You should also explore the concepts of \"\"fully dilute\"\" shares and \"\"basis\"\" shares. These concepts will throw-off your calc if the company has convertible bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9758a5c6885e6ddfe6022e9eb530ab12",
"text": "\"According to the following article the answer is \"\"first-in, first-out\"\": http://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-cost-basis-stock-multiple-purchases-21588.html According to the following article the last answer was just one option an investor can choose: https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/advice-investing-costbasis?akredirect=true\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a43fd02236810d0cff0fa9231398b1d",
"text": "Let's suppose your friend gave your $100 and you invested all of it (plus your own money, $500) into one stock. Therefore, the total investment becomes $100 + $500 = $600. After few months, when you want to sell the stock or give back the money to your friend, check the percentage of profit/loss. So, let's assume you get 10% return on total investment of $600. Now, you have two choices. Either you exit the stock entirely, OR you just sell his portion. If you want to exit, sell everything and go home with $600 + 10% of 600 = $660. Out of $660, give you friend his initial capital + 10% of initial capital. Therefore, your friend will get $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. If you choose the later, to sell his portion, then you'll need to work everything opposite. Take his initial capital and add 10% of initial capital to it; which is $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. Sell the stocks that would be worth equivalent to that money and that's it. Similarly, you can apply the same logic if you broke his $100 into parts. Do the maths.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237d225e0da24ae0ac9d26ba666568d8",
"text": "i will not calculate it for you but just calculate the discounted cash flow (by dividing with 1.1 / 1.1^2 / 1.1^3 ...)of each single exercise as stated and deduct the 12.000 of the above sum. in the end compare which has the highest npv",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "923403f0704091c3e4cf237f5f4586ce",
"text": "Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"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": "fb1797631bbe56e4504988fc1ee766c1",
"text": "1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63",
"text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a8ff89be169d4386afa9703d41dbe4a",
"text": "You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it? Have you collected the data? It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares. Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
62695bcbdf752339ce03af3f5a5f8cb1
|
What happens when there are no Limit Orders?
|
[
{
"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": "a5a762c3b03def85a56560b80be50f9b",
"text": "The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b146e4424d5e595a6da88bcf9c996c68",
"text": "\"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"",
"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": "9ca579a1d52fc5a986c5132394e6ff7b",
"text": "It depends on how you place your stop order and the type of stop orders available from your broker. If you place a stop market order and the following day the stock opens below your stop your stock will be stopped out at or around the opening price, meaning you can potentially end up with quite a large gap. If you place a stop limit order, say you place your stop at $10.00 with a limit price of $9.90, and if the price opens below $9.90, say at $9.50, your limit sell order of $9.90 will be placed onto the market but it will not be executed until the price goes back up to $9.90 or above. The third option is to place a Guaranteed Stop Loss, and as specified you are guaranteed your stop price even if the price gaps down below your stop price. You will be paying an extra fee for the Guaranteed Stop Loss Order, and they are usually mainly available with CFD Brokers (so if you are in the USA you might be out of luck).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5723b51fad1696ea8ec96f47b9e7c810",
"text": "A limit order is simply an order to buy at a maximum price or sell at a minimum price. For example, if the price is $100 and you want to sell if the price rises to $110, then you can simply put a limit order to sell at $110. The order will be placed in the market and when the price reaches $110 your order will be executed. If the price gaps at the open to $111, then you would end up selling for $111. In other words you will get a minimum of $110 per share. A stop limit order is where you put a stop loss order, which when it gets triggered, will place a limit order in the market for you. For example, you want to limit your losses by placing a stop loss order if the price drops to $90. If you chose a market order with your stop loss as soon as the price hits $90 your stop loss would be triggered and the shares would sell at the next available price, usually at $90, but could be less if the market gaps down past $90. If on the other hand you placed a limit order at $89.50 with your stop loss, when the stop loss order gets triggered at $90 your limit order will be placed into the market to sell at $89.50. So you would get a minimum of $89.50 per share, however, if the market gaps down below $89.50 your order will be placed onto the market but it won't sell, unless the price goes back to or above $89.50. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af10b20aad5898e5868d79f09afeaf6",
"text": "But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"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": "9af0557f84f79e21e7f87405211ea996",
"text": "\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17cbd235c36f5314eb8a71047b94fe43",
"text": "Obvious answer but the limit order should be set at the price that you are willing to pay :). More usefully, if you want a decent chance of the order filling in short notice you should place the order one price tick above the current highest buyer (bid price). As long as high frequency trading remains alive I would advise against ever using market orders, these algorithmic trades can occasionally severely distort the price of a security in a fraction of a second. So if your market order happens to fill in during such a distortion you might end up massively overpaying/underselling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b06b32f83f65d01ab0230c995ad296",
"text": "\"That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only \"\"research\"\" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade. So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price. That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this \"\"backstop\"\" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange). And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades. As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that. We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us. They're only there as a backstop. There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against. Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there. And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none. If you were to visualize the resting orders in a product's book as prices moved up and down, you would essentially see a Gaussian distribution with mean at the last trade price, and it would move up and down with the price. That \"\"movement\"\" is accomplished by cancellations followed by new orders. P.S. As always, keep in mind that your and my orders almost never actually make it to a real stock exchange anymore. Nowadays they are almost always sent to brokers' and big banks' internal dark pools. And in there you and I have no idea what shenanigans are going on. As just one example, dark pools allow their operators and (for a fee) other institutional participants access to a feature called last look that allows them to cancel their resting order as late as after your order has been matched against it! :( Regarding the question in your comment ... If Alice is sending only bona fide orders (that is, only placing an order at time T if, given all the information she has at time T, she truly wants and intends for it to be filled) then her cancellation at a later time actually adds to the effectiveness of and public perception of the market as a tool for price discovery (which is its ultimate purpose). [In the following example imagine that there are no such things as trading fees or commissions or taxes.] Let's say Alice offers to buy AAPL at $99.99 when the rest of the market is trading it for $100.00. By doing so she is casting her vote that the \"\"fair value\"\" of a share of AAPL is between $99.99 and $100.00. After all, if she thought the fair value of a share of AAPL was higher -- say, between $100.00 and $100.01 -- then she should be willing to pay $100.00 (because that's below fair value) and she should expect that other people in the market will not soon decide to sell to her at $99.99. If some time later Alice does decide that the fair value of AAPL is between $100.00 and $100.01 then she should definitely cancel her order at $99.99, for exactly the reason discussed above. She probably won't get filled at $99.99, and by sitting there stubbornly she's missing out (potentially forever) on the possibility to make a profit. Through the simple act of cancelling her $99.99 order, Alice is once again casting a vote that she no longer thinks that's AAPL's fair value. She is (very slightly) altering the collective opinion of the entire market as to what a share of AAPL is worth. And if her cancellation then frees her up to place another order closer to her perceived fair value (say, at $100.00), then that's another vote for her honest optinion about AAPL's price. Since the whole goal of the market is to get a bunch of particpants to figure out the fair value of some financial instrument (or commodity, or smart phone, or advertising time, etc.), cancellations of honest votes from the past in order to replace them with new, better-informed honest votes in the present can only be a good thing for the market's effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. It's only when participants start sending non-honest votes (non bona fide orders) that things start to go off the rails. That's what @DumbCoder was referring to in his comment on your original question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e780f8fe3a75a5098b5bff95d2abd3c3",
"text": "The next day the market opens trading at 10.50, You haven't specified whether you limit order for $10.10 is to buy or sell. When the trading opens next day, it follows the same process of matching the orders. So if you have put a limit order to buy at $10.10 and there is no sell order at that price, your trade will not go through. If you have placed a limit sell order at $10.10 and there is a buyer at or higher price, it would go through. The Open price is the price of the first trade of the day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c641d6c1e0a8f0b07c0d7f8dc9cbeb3",
"text": "Stop order is triggered when the market reaches the price you set. Until then - its not on the books. Your understanding is wrong in that you don't go to read the definition of the term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e9576dd3432fe0b79aa0199b062b03b",
"text": "Typically this isn't a random order- having a small volume just means it's not showing on the chart, but it is a vlid price point. Same thing would've happened if it would've been a very large order that shows on the chart. Consider also that this could have been the first one of many transactions that go far below your stop point - would you not have wanted it to be executed then, at this time, as it did? Would you expect the system to look into future and decide that this is a one time dip, and not sell; versus it is a crash, and sell? Either way, the system cannot look in the future, so it has no way to know if a crash is coming, or if it was a short dip; therefore the instrcutions are executed as given - sell if any transfer happens below the limit. To avoid that (or at least reduce the chance for it), you can either leave more distance (and risk a higher loss when it crashes), or trade higher volumes, so the short small dip won't execute your order; also, very liquid stocks will not show such small transaction dips.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e81d2a27fbc67c911ffd9e2be69dd428",
"text": "\"If there are no limit orders on the opposite side of the book when your market order gets its turn for execution, it should be rejected by the market. A market order should generally not \"\"sit on the book\"\" like your question suggests waiting for another order to arrive. Thus, the situation that you describe should not happen in an ordinary market that is operating in an orderly fashion. This is not to say that your order cannot \"\"sit\"\" for a while in a queue - If there is heavy volume, orders will be executed in order, so your your market order may have to wait for orders entered ahead of it to be processed. But once its turn comes up, that's it. There are some related points to consider: I should caution that my answer is biased a bit to US stock markets, whereas you asked about currency markets. I believe the same basic principles apply, but I'd be swayed by someone with evidence to the contrary. I'd also note that currency tends to be more liquid than stock, so I think it's less likely that this situation would come up. Maybe possible for a \"\"weak\"\" currency or a currency that experiences a sudden crisis of some sort.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aacf84abf0e15e48cd79c9cdb7a0e26c",
"text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
35a925418860448a830c85a3bfde2ad9
|
Different ways of looking at P/E Ratio vs EPS
|
[
{
"docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344",
"text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b",
"text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9e3f98e37300ff02c60507a576ce78a9",
"text": "I see this same argument with Amazon who's P/E is also through the roof. Valuation is way more complicated than looking at income statement ratios. There are some pretty solid reasons for its valuation. I'm inclined to agree it is overvalued, but not as much as you think.",
"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": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70e23a1994c05aa2ebbf3034d32bde75",
"text": "PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700",
"text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76c6225dc5f0d9e48a5430310a5a8e41",
"text": "This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "763b874917da099d22ea9724fbc4d829",
"text": "PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e88a0fd8405877ed821efe13bd3a78",
"text": "P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "cfc6a71d87f7cc84ff75401a7965d421",
"text": "I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb0d925b58ea2b1b9af8fe85c545a4c",
"text": "E&P can be valid throug Net Present Value methods, on a field-by-field basis. As no field is ever-lasting, and there Are not an unlimited number of fields, perpetuity-formulaes Are shitty. FCFF on a per-field basis with WC and Capex, with a definite lifetime. Thank you for the compliment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202984fdfca72013590d80a373c28d40",
"text": "\"P/E is Price divided by Earnings Per Share (EPS). P/E TTM is Price divided by the actual EPS earned over the previous 12 months - hence \"\"Trailing Twelve Month\"\". In Forward P/E is the \"\"E\"\" is the average of analyst expectations for the next year in EPS. Now, as to what's being displayed. Yahoo shows EPS to be 1.34. 493.90/1.34 = P/E of 368.58 Google shows EPS to be 0.85. 493.40/0.85 = P/E of 580.47 (Prices as displayed, respectively) So, by the info that they are themselves displaying, it's Google, not Yahoo, that's displaying the wrong P/E. Note that the P/E it is showing is 5.80 -- a decimal misplacement from 580 Note that CNBC shows the Earnings as 0.85 as well, and correctly show the P/E as 580 http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L A quick use of a currency calculator reveals a possible reason why EPS is listed differently at yahoo. 0.85 pounds is 1.3318 dollars, currently. So, I think the Yahoo EPS listing is in dollars. A look at the last 4 quarters on CNBC makes that seem reasonable: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L/tab/5 those add up to $1.40.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd14465a90edf3ad4f5450dd7ba028f",
"text": "Just from my experience and observation... VC there are spikes of activity. Where many deals are closing and board meetings and issues pile up on top of each other and happen all at once. But VC there are lulls where not much is going on. PE is more consistent and predictable in general. Yes of course exceptions arise but I found PE to be more 9 to 5 ish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2e68179cb7715afc6b734828b30557",
"text": "PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1500f915fbda5ae2275acb5a9e738da0
|
Putting the gordon equation into practice
|
[
{
"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": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8f41df48721af72be30a3317aeb290be",
"text": "\"Despite having a math degree, I basically only use basic algebra/probability/calculus on a day to day basis as my career has gone a different direction away from the modelling/quanty stuff. Some fun reading: * The SABR Model - [SABR/LIBOR Model](http://www.amazon.com/SABR-LIBOR-Market-Model-Interest-Rate/dp/0470740051) * Shevre's Stochastic Calculus for Finance - [Book 1](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Binomial-Textbooks/dp/0387249680/) & [Book 2](http://www.amazon.com/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-Continuous-Time-Textbooks/dp/144192311X/) One of the big 'hard' problems is calibrating a swap curve w/ what's known as the 3s6s Basis. As a number of true quants have said to me it is a \"\"non-trivial problem\"\". Its basically trying to match two curves with different compounding over a number of different knot points. SABR Model, listed above, is all about calibrating and figuring out how the current rate enviroment is behaving, is it normal or lognormal? What is the blend between the two, how do you know when you are in a different environment etc. Can rates go negative?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f695763ca65e9af96afa7b18eaabb85",
"text": "I'm not sure of another other forums, maybe WSO? For subreddits, perhaps r/Economics can at least guide you better. Thanks for sharing the papers! I wish I had some I could share with you but I don't know any. Maybe you can ask your profs, or even profs at other institutions? I'm sure they will appreciate the initiative and help you out. I really don't know much about any of that yet unfortunately. Wish I could be of more help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75d4310262273e34e841a9af94674387",
"text": "I don't expect you to remember the area for the surface of a sphere; I do expect you to be able to take a derivative of a volume. Especially if you are a PhD. Believe it or not, it IS faster than looking it up on the internet. And abilities to do quick back of the napkin estimations are very handy in my field (CS). Also, I noticed that meetings with people who are in command of basic facts are usually faster and more productive than with people who are constantly looking things up on the internet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "431f46bfded2c023fa118d293c6f5bce",
"text": "But an axiomatic approach only works in a deterministic environment, it does not work in a probabilistic environment. By your own arguments, because humans have free will so economics cannot be equated with a deterministic branch like physics. At this point now you are just contradicting yourself over and over. And it depends entirely on how accurate the axioms are. If observations do not match equation outcomes, then while the mathematics of the equation might be sound, the obvious conclusion is that the axioms themselves are faulty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe202e328349c719107ab04bcc0000a",
"text": "\"Using the following equations from the book a stab at the correlation can be made. Calculating the residual volatilities from equation 2.4 The correlation of stock A with stock B is 0.378 and stock B has the higher residual volatility. However, the correlation is given as a \"\"simple model\"\", which may suggest that it is an approximation. If I have applied it correctly, some testing shows that it is only approximate. Also of interest\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "149c4682dfbc9647724e92e4509ee2da",
"text": "Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04fb092a2a8b06046799dcc5521819c",
"text": "\"Both models understand that the value of a company is the sum total of all cashflows in the future, discounted back to the present. They vary in their definition of \"\"cash\"\". The Gordon Growth model uses dividends as a proxy for cashflow, under the assumption that this is the only true cash received by shareholders. (In theory, counting cash is meaningless if there's no eventual end-game where the accumulated cash is divvied up amongst the owners.) The Gordon model is best used to value companies that have an established, reliable dividend. The company should be stable, and the payout ratio high. GG will underestimate the value of firms that consistently maintain a low payout ratio, and instead accumulate cash. There are multiple DCF models. A firm valuation measures all cash available to both equity and debt holders. A traditional equity valuation measures all cash that can be claimed by shareholders. While the latter seems most intuitive and pertinent to a shareholder, the former is very good at showing what a company can do regardless of their choice of capital structure. A small add-on to a firm valuation is the concept of EVA, or economic value add, where the return on capital (all capital -- both debt and equity) is compared to the blended cost of capital. The DCF model is more flexible (optimistic?) than the Gordon in its approach to cash. The approach can be applied to many types of companies, at every stage in their maturity, even if they don't pay a dividend. A simplistic, or single-stage DCF is similar to the Gordon. The assumption is that the company is fully mature, growing at a rate perhaps just slightly above inflation, forever. For younger companies a multi-stage DCF can be employed, where you forecast fairly confident numbers for the next 3-5 years, then 3-5 years beyond that the forecast is less certain, but assumed to be slowing growth, and a generally maturing, stabilizing company. And then the steady-state stage is tacked on to the end. You'll want to check out Professor Aswath Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . He addresses all this and so much more, and has a big pile of spreadsheets freely downloadable to get you started. I also highly recommend his book \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". It's the bible on the topic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5070df72e782e7506f474de8de546a33",
"text": "This is a useful metric in that it gives you a trust factor on how reliable the beta is for future expectations It is akin to velocity and acceleration First and second order derivatives of distance / time. Erratic acceleration implies the velocity is less trustworthy Same idea for beta",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfae4ee3ce21e5318f8c77e2a1927e1",
"text": "I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e486927a79afd6d5ac23b8d65901d117",
"text": "The details of the DJIA methodology is outlined in the official methodology document on their website. In addition, you will need their index mathematics document, which gives the nitty-gritty details of any type of adjustments that must be made. Between the two you should have the complete picture in as fine a detail as you want, including exactly what is done in response to various corporate actions like splits and structural changes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "994e6b8db9d29bee15c4ac75aa0e3452",
"text": "\"What are you trying to do Exactly? What is a covariance \"\"profile\"\"? (Cov Matrix)? Also lose the jargon. From my understanding you want the same covariance in the portfolio, however it doesn't work like that as covariance is an observed matrix. It's hard enough to target variance in a portfolio (see GMV) and to target covariance would be even more difficult. You can attempt to use the weights you have right now in terms of exposures, but LEAPS may give you unwanted theta. Are you long short or long only? if you're long only the interplay between the positions is rather irrelevent, as right now all that matters are the weights.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5cb9d360bc48e77121b81a76aab2c86",
"text": "There are entire 5-person teams dedicated to forecasting *individual products* at major companies that roll up to product class teams, which then roll up to balance sheet forecasting. Since all of those companies have major capital markets operations, these things get huge. The real forecasters are spending 10-14 hours a day, year-round using massive models to come up with competent forecasts. I did this for a few years, it's leaps and bounds more than applying multiples. I hope you get a lot of participation, but you have to see the flaw in this dataset. I think this would be better done by honing your focus in on what forecasting you're talking about. It's a very, very broad field.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d7a645445e4dd9f686ffb012d9da31f",
"text": "I just used the formula in below link and did some math. I have that book too but haven't looked at it yet really. Lots of maths to have fun with. Let me know if this is correct or needs fixing. Source: http://wiki.fool.com/How_to_Calculate_Beta_From_Volatility_%26_Correlation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b864d4d85ad3aab45056ecc7fe48123e",
"text": "\"I'm reasonably familiar with the field for a non-specialist, certainly with the 14 qubit example and the D-Wave stuff. I've experimented with quantum lambda calculi, which relate to my own interests. But an article much like this could have been written back in the mid-90s. The fact is we don't know yet what limitations, hard or soft (e.g. economic), will be encountered. Although the article admitted that, it just felt too hyped to me overall. To be fair to the author, it's not just him: e.g. he quotes Seth Lloyd saying that quantum computing \"\"allow us to understand the universe in its own language\"\". Which, btw, is nonsense when you consider that imposing qubits on some underlying substrate is actually just encoding a specific approach to computation, and has nothing to do with the universe's \"\"own language\"\", whatever that means.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aed1402919df5aa185eb2e4f3324728b
|
Correct way to amend tax return as a result of not correctly reporting gains on sale of private stock based on Installment method?
|
[
{
"docid": "c3daf02c2828ef1b7739fe35ac39d2e0",
"text": "\"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dbc4805402e3c2f938447a313d0ac5fe",
"text": "\"I've consulted with 5-6 accountants and people who've had the issue before. The advice I received boils down to: \"\"If you do not attach your 83b with your personal tax return it is not effective. However you can still correct the requirement to file it along with your tax return, because you are within the 3 year window of when the return was originally due.\"\" So you can amend your return/file it late within a certain window and things should be OK. The accountants that have confirmed this are Vanessa Kruze, Wray Rives and Augie Rakow - all of them corporate and credible accountants. You also need to keep onto the confirmation the IRS sent you in case of an audit. There is nothing on IRS.gov about attaching your 83b on a filed late or amended return but those accountants are people who say they've seen it happen frequently, have consulted with the IRS for solutions and that's the one they'd advise one to do in such situation. disclaimer: I am not a CPA\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd",
"text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd4bc1c1743be97be65b364924cfbaa",
"text": "\"I don't know if it's common or necessary to include capital stock as a liability? Yes, if you look at the title of the nonasset part of the balance sheet it actually is titled \"\"Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity\"\". Your capital stock is a component of Equity. This sounds like it was reported in a reasonable manner. \"\"$2,582 listed under Loans from Shareholders (Line 19).\"\" Did you have a basis issue with your distributions? That is did you take shareholder distributions more than your adjusted basis that you have been taxed on? I have seen the practice of considering distributions in excess of basis as short term loans to prevent the additional taxation of the excess distribution. Be careful when you adjust this entry, your balance sheet had to roll from one year to the next. You must have a reasonable transaction to substantiate the removal of the shareholder loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5a1458ae217b838333d1a4d8690a177",
"text": "You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11d9f20c10870a59cfb7994066ecf4c1",
"text": "\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e23e9b15dd562465366a939546bc4577",
"text": "\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0a23b436069fb1ebdb4e83095041424",
"text": "\"You should contact the company and the broker about the ownership. Do you remember ever selling your position? When you look back at your tax returns/1099-B forms - can you identify the sale? It should have been reported to you, and you should have reported it to the IRS. If not - then you're probably still the owner. As to K-1 - the income reported doesn't have to be distributed to you. Partnership is a pass-through entity, and cannot \"\"accumulate\"\" earnings for tax purposes, everything is deemed distributed. If, however, it is not actually distributed - you're still taxed on the income, but it is added to your basis in the partnership and you get the tax \"\"back\"\" when you sell your position. However, you pay income tax on the income based on the kind of the income, and on the sale - at capital gains rates. So the amounts added to your position will reduce your capital gains tax, but may be taxed at ordinary rates. Get a professional advice on the issue and what to do next, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in New York.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aecb89aa542ff8f7d271b5459c3effc",
"text": "You definitely should NOT do what you are doing now (#2) since this is not a reflection of what actually is going on. (Unless you actually did transfer the equities themselves and not the cash.) Your first option is correct solution. As noted by mpenrow you need to make sure that the target account is also tax deferred. If that still doesn't work and there is a bug you should still do it this way anyway. If it messes up your tax planner just make sure to include a comment so that everyone knows what is really going on. When I have had issues like this in the past I always try to stick to whatever is the closest indication of what actually occurred.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9574f0e2fb0fbf836e189b29db9332cd",
"text": "\"If the IRS changes your return in any way (including math errors) - they send a letter explaining the change and the reasons for it. You should read that letter, it will answer your question (Usually its a CP12 notice). If you didn't receive it - you can call them and ask to resend it (they're unlikely to answer over the phone, but you can try asking). I'm confused by your using the word \"\"estimate\"\". Your tax return is not supposed to be estimate, it supposed to be precise. Why are you considering your tax return \"\"estimate\"\"? If your filed tax return shows refund of $X and you received $X+$180 - then as I said, a letter of explanation from the IRS is due. If you don't know what the refund amount on your return is and you're trying to \"\"estimate\"\" it now - you better get a copy of that return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4530e6b6be3bfa3bab7a20445cf85f27",
"text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2344c287634cb6e22a4b35f37aee3997",
"text": "Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b3e7692fed18720326764c41804733",
"text": "I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment. That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out. It's a cash-for-stock transaction. So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary. The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund). I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment. It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e010e30f00d9eee999d65576330a6ad6",
"text": "Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f93b16f83112a863c120804578eea78d",
"text": "For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95e392331ea40b47c5aa6e86a019aa5b",
"text": "Oanda.com trades spot forex and something they call box options, it's not quite what you are looking for, but maybe worth looking up.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
55479ce99897c9eb08ad3f492780c491
|
Do my kids need to file a tax return?
|
[
{
"docid": "18bec4a970be8966d9135b371b8116bc",
"text": "No they do not. From form 1040 instructions, a single, non-blind dependent under age 65 must file if the following are true: You must file a return if any of the following apply. There is no return required for receipt of a gift.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baebd309ec2e588da4ec6750b375502a",
"text": "If the gift was stock that they have owned for years there can be one hitch: The basis of the stock doesn't reset when it is gifted. For example if grandparents have owned stock that is currently worth $10,000 today, but they bought it decades ago when it only cost them $1,000; then if the new owner sells it today they will have a gain of $9,000. The clock to determine short term/long term also doesn't reset; which is good. The basis needs to be determined now so that the gain can be accurately calculated in the future. This information should be stored in a safe place. Gains for dividends are investment income and the rules regarding the kiddie tax need to be followed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "61bca5eaadfad484bdc2f9c3fa39eb81",
"text": "You should talk to a tax professional in your area. It seems like you should start filing your returns. In the US there are certain income thresholds that need to be attained before a return is required, though it's often thought of as best practice to file anyway. Also in the US there are programs designed to encourage delinquent filers to begin filing again, which may include penalty/fee reduction for voluntarily filing. Somehow I suspect Canada has similar programs. If you stand to inherit a sizable amount of money it seems that you should have a history of tax returns in order to minimize the number of questions that are asked should the money come your way. I'd talk to a tax person before consulting an attorney. From the tone of your question the Canadian tax authority hasn't initiated anything against you. You just want to understand the best course of action regarding your tax situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "141cacd17d8b5d3bc1b174b087f8a5ab",
"text": "Depends whom the 1099 was issued to. If it was issued to your corporation - then its your corporation's income, not yours. Why would it go to your tax return? Your corporation and you are two separate legal entities. You will have to file the 1120S, whether you have corporate income or not, it has to be filed each year. So why make a mess of your reporting and not just report the corporation income on its return and your personal income on your own return? If you no longer use the corporation and all the 1099's are issued to you personally, then just dissolve it so that you won't have to file an empty 1120S every year and pay additional fees for maintaining it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "097521db220e281281b9e1ab8b2be1a0",
"text": "\"Does her dad still have the records from those tax years? If so, I would suggest using those as a basis and if they're complete, just filing them directly. If we're talking about software recommendations, I would suggest GenuTax as it allows for completing returns all the way back to 2003 without buying separate versions. Alternatively, there are some no-cost options. See the Wikipedia entry Comparison of Canadian-tax preparation software for personal use. Look both at the \"\"Price\"\" column and at the \"\"Freebies\"\" column. You should start at 2006 and move forward so you can keep track of carry-forward amounts. I'm assuming your girlfriend had no balance owing from those years as she was a student so there's no penalty to worry about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80f37a9693776121b787c7f4caa04d8",
"text": "No, you probably do not need to file a tax return if you received no income, and if you meet a number of other criteria. The below is copied and pasted, slightly edited, from the CRA: You must file a return for 2014 if any of the following situations apply: You have to pay tax for 2014. We sent you a request to file a return. You and your spouse or common-law partner elected to split pension income for 2014. See lines 115, 116, 129, and 210. You received working income tax benefit (WITB) advance payments in 2014. You disposed of capital property in 2014 (for example, if you sold real estate or shares) or you realized a taxable capital gain (for example, if a mutual fund or trust attributed amounts to you, or you are reporting a capital gains reserve you claimed on your 2013 return). You have to repay any of your old age security or employment insurance benefits. See line 235. You have not repaid all amounts withdrawn from your registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) under the Home Buyers’ Plan or the Lifelong Learning Plan. For more information, go to Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) or see Guide RC4112, Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) or You have to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). This can apply if, for 2014, the total of your net self-employment income and pensionable employment income is more than $3,500. See line 222. You are paying employment insurance premiums on self-employment and other eligible earnings. See lines 317 and 430. In general, you will want to file a tax return even if none of the above applies. You could, for example, claim a GST/HST credit even with no income. Now, if you receive any income at all, you are going to have to pay taxes, which means you are obligated to file a tax return. If sufficient taxes were deducted from your paycheque, you are still obligated to file a tax return. However, you will not have to pay penalties if you file late, even if you file very late, at least not until the CRA sends you a request to file. But be aware, you won't likely be able to tell if you owe the CRA money until you do your taxes, and if you do end up owing, there are substantial penalties for filing late. In general, I'd strongly advise filing your tax return in almost all circumstances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9465295f9681f3dc74f2e647335bfdd",
"text": "Since you are living in India and earning income not from salary, you must file your tax return under ITR4(Profits or Gains of Business or Profession). You can do it online on IncomeTax India eFiling website, step by step guide available here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b2c743e559c868ee05c1c2d653061c9",
"text": "This sort of involves personal finance, and sort of not. But it's an interesting question, so let's call it on topic? Short answer: yes. Long answer: it depends who's asking. If you're trying to qualify for in-state tuition, for example, you need to have been in state for a certain amount of time. For tax purposes, the first year you move to a new state you need to file part-time resident returns in your previous and current state of residency",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ec07a7084d37b0262ffb6813149b45",
"text": "Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26934933debfc980c3627ccfc5be78e7",
"text": "\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\"\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\"\"), in the section \"\"Taking People With You\"\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216",
"text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf7eb1d359acbe01101e11b426bc974",
"text": "Let's have a look at Who must send a tax return: You’ll need to send a tax return if, in the last tax year: And we're done. It doesn't matter that your tax will come out to zero - you still need to TELL them this, otherwise how are they going to know? 'Person liable for zero tax who doesn't send their tax return' and 'Person liable for a million quid of tax who doesn't send their tax return' look the same...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b15d163a90235fed85ed81ab71d178ac",
"text": "\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70cf8d23890f8f5e17526f378a4ec318",
"text": "\"In a word, no. If your income is high enough to have to file a return, you have to file a return. My accountant has a nice mindset for making it more palatable. I'll paraphrase: \"\"Our tax system is ludicrously complicated. As a result, it is your duty as an American to seek out and take advantage of every deduction and credit available to you. If our politicians and leaders put it into the tax code, use it to your advantage.\"\" A friend of mine got a free golf cart that way. It was a crazy combination of credits and loopholes for electric vehicles. That loophole has been closed, and some would say it's a great example of him exercising his patriotic duty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d31afb23d1362c3d8ae5cbc15fb6ac4",
"text": "As Mhoran stated, no dependents, no need. Even with dependants, insurance is to cover those who would otherwise have a hardship. Once the kids are off to college and house paid for, the need drops dramatically. There are some rather complex uses for insurance when estates are large but potentially illiquid. Clearly this doesn't apply to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4aa07f26f949b47c07d71acff501526",
"text": "Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011",
"text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7bd9f55734b16e3c678cd30aef02df9
|
Shorting diluting stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "362db2132f76b356240b557058c5bff7",
"text": "\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "907deeaa3c67ab33eead5ceaece419ad",
"text": "The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d362c8bc0990303daf411cf46087887b",
"text": "\"My problem with your argument is that you don't have one. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the difference between mortgage backed securities and company stock or the difference between a short sale and buying a credit default swap. You keep spouting unrelated \"\"facts\"\" as if the mean something. Did big banks short sale FB? Who knows? Did they buy FB CDOs? No they didn't. There is no such thing. Did they buy credit default swaps? No.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b",
"text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e966816ac8117e9d36c6a1933be9cf27",
"text": "Any publicly traded financial instrument can be sold short, in theory. There are, however, many regulations associated with short sales of US equities that may prevent certain stocks from being sold short at certain times or through certain brokers. Some examples: the most basic requirement (this isn't a regulation, it's just the definition of a short sale) is that you or your broker must have access to someone willing to loan you his/her shares. If you are interested in shorting a security with few shares outstanding or low trade volume, there may simply not be enough people in the world willing to loan you theirs. Alternatively, there may be a shareholder willing to loan shares, but your broker may not have a relationship with the clearing house that shareholder is using. A larger/better/different broker might be able to help. threshold securities list - since 2005, each day certain securities are not allowed to be sold short based on their recent history of liquidity. Basically, if a certain number of transactions in a security have not been correctly settled over the past few days, then the SEC has reason to believe that short sales (which require extra transactions) are at higher risk of falling through. circuit breaker a.k.a. alternative uptick - since 2011, during certain market conditions, exchanges are now required to reject short sales for certain securities in order to prevent market crashes/market abuse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b932b0d181fe36d3fdcc9450f3209b67",
"text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc2327bc80a91ae5adcc222141720c7a",
"text": "Stock dilution is legal because, in theory, the issuance of new shares shouldn't affect actual shareholder value. The other answers have explained fairly well why this is so. In practice, however, the issuance of new shares can destroy shareholder value. This normally happens when the issuing company: In these cases, the issuance of more shares merely reduces each shareholder's stake in the company without building proportional shareholder value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34381a7b74f49aa63df4a518a5f7145b",
"text": "Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3372ab2c637d4541156521cfb61737d7",
"text": "\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffc2696f44abc36f9a01f7d5177739f5",
"text": "http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ac39972a1a57646b9f5348a6da011c",
"text": "\"The shares available to short are a portion of those shares held by the longs. This number is actually much easier to determine outside of active trading hours, but either way doesn't really impact the matter at hand since computers are pretty good at counting things. If your broker is putting up obstacles to your issuing sell short limit orders in the pre-market then there is likely some other reason (maybe they reserve that function to \"\"premium\"\" account holders?)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff007ae6a97c5126436e7624320dc4a",
"text": "why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b5989774eb16d6d1f84f1e7e0d30d22",
"text": "\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8bbc20a585265e0b8dd49aab3e57357",
"text": "I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
586dfb765d4a7822dec1ee5c8cbf30a5
|
How do day-traders or frequent traders handle their taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "e23e9b15dd562465366a939546bc4577",
"text": "\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4feee62d05283e344f0ef317796f6d4e",
"text": "Starting of 2011, your broker has to keep track of all the transactions and the cost basis, and it will be reported on your 1099-B. Also, some brokers allow downloading the data directly to your tax software or to excel charts (I use E*Trade, and last year TurboTax downloaded all the transaction directly from them).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cecb611496cca6b62da8005849636d21",
"text": "You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "af53fe1b8df5ef47b581399e1b92a747",
"text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f0bf4cadc7fbe8eae1c85a73b5ad41e",
"text": "As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f05a577b8e104eb30a83b40795f6836",
"text": "\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72346b1707630408d4b3eef428f45fa7",
"text": "A tax of 0.01 cents on a transaction though would mean you'd wait until the spread was at least 0.02 cents before making the trade. But I particularly think the offender is not even day traders, it's the completely ridiculous fact that a person will offer to buy stock at a certain price, or lower, another person will offer to sell the stock at a lower price, and before the transaction is completed another broker buys the stock and resells it, because his computer is located closer to the data center than either of the other two persons. That guy is making money and wasting electricity and real estate to get it, and the ultimate purchaser is getting a worse deal. We still have that problem, but the margins have been squeezed on the HTF guy a bit, so maybe it isn't an issue.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5578afe7b8b8fea73e4f1a44aea7c7e",
"text": "To try to answer the three explicit questions: Every share of stock is treated proportionately: each share is assigned the same dollar amount of investment (1/176th part of the contribution in the example), and has the same discount amount (15% of $20 or $25, depending on when you sell, usually). So if you immediately sell 120 shares at $25, you have taxable income on the gain for those shares (120*($25-$17)). Either selling immediately or holding for the long term period (12-18 mo) can be advantageous, just in different ways. Selling immediately avoids a risk of a decline in the price of the stock, and allows you to invest elsewhere and earn income on the proceeds for the next 12-18 months that you would not otherwise have had. The downside is that all of your gain ($25-$17 per share) is taxed as ordinary income. Holding for the full period is advantageous in that only the discount (15% of $20 or $25) will be taxed as ordinary income and the rest of the gain (sell price minus $20 or $25) will be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which generally are lower than ordinary rates (all taxes are due in the year you do sell). The catch is you will sell at different price, higher or lower, and thus have a risk of loss (or gain). You will never be (Federally) double taxed in any scenario. The $3000 you put in will not be taxed after all is sold, as it is a return of your capital investment. All money you receive in excess of the $3000 will be taxed, in all scenarios, just potentially at different rates, ordinary or capital gain. (All this ignores AMT considerations, which you likely are not subject to.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "89ce8330c1188a7e46ca04b2cc8cf14a",
"text": "> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00fd19472be34909b70a36447dd0f38e",
"text": "The simple answer is that brokerages have to close the books at the end of the year before they can send out the tax forms (what this entails is off topic for this site). I doubt that printing and mailing the forms takes very long. It is simply the process of reconciling the books so they don't have to send out corrected forms if errors are corrected during that reconciliation process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e65f93872551596f03d5295e3c395167",
"text": "This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often. The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b019846297278de056f719f3ed53f4ff",
"text": "\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd73aefd86f04d3f7c589c41e3bfbaff",
"text": "I'm currently using ecns to trade odd lot taxables. However, this is a market that some days produces big returns and some days the faucet is barely dripping. The constant uncertainly and having to go to work everyday to hunt is awesome but at the same time rather questionable in the long run. Any suggestions? I'm also looking to raise my current take home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b8333e65a4904eda82fab6b725587ca",
"text": "Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"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": "891f132c447cb95d82b662ce8df7dbd4",
"text": "I haven't seen anyone mention tax considerations and that's why I'm answering this. The rest of my answer is probably covered in the aggregate of other responses. Here's how I would look at this in a taxable (not an IRA) account: This could be an opportunity to harvest the tax losses to offset taxable gains this year or in future years. Unless I have compelling reasons to believe that the price will recover by at least (Loss% x ApplicableTaxRate) in the next 31 days then I would take the known - IRS tables - opportunities over the unknown. Here's what I would consider for all accounts: Is this the most likely place to earn a good return on my money and is it contributing to a strategy that fits my risk tolerance? You might need to get some emotional distance from the pain to make this determination objectively. As you consider your trading and investment strategy going forward consider that when it hurts and you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps to think clearly about your situation, you were most likely trading with too much size for you in that particular position. I'm willing to make exceptions to that rule of thumb, but it's a good way to use the painful losses as a gut check on how your strategy fits your real situation. P.S. All traders experience individual losses that hurt and find their way to the most suitable strategies for them through these painful experiences.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4aebd978d1c004c9ccfa71fed16c2a3f
|
At Vanguard, can I transfer shares from regular investment account to a Roth IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "d900d6b73946b0e93cf1d6dcf6a20d28",
"text": "No, IRA contributions can only be made in the form of cash (rollovers and conversions are different). You'd have to sell the investments in your taxable account, incurring capital gains or losses, then transfer the proceeds to your IRA in cash. Note that the amount you can transfer is subject to the limits on how much one can contribute to the IRA each year. You could look into Vanguard Target Retirement funds, which have a lower $1,000 minimum investment, or Vanguard ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d305b10a1c92ff10d74819621308fa",
"text": "Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eb0564abb97baf963b3f88ffa1f71db2",
"text": "When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b6ad8bfdcfdf871ae6e434e5646d826",
"text": "\"Your contributions must come from \"\"compensation\"\". Quoting IRS Publication 590 on IRAs, \"\"Generally, compensation is what you earn from working.\"\" So it is unlikely that your stock sale proceeds, if they're your sole source of income, can be used to fund your IRA. If you do have W-2 income, or self employment income, you can use the proceeds of a stock sale to fund an IRA. The IRS doesn't care where the exact dollars that go into the IRA come from, only that you earned (from working) at least as much as you contributed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53444f57e0a5d045f96d7121af7bad38",
"text": "Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f8de6c19c1a6d3018d689e67f880b5",
"text": "What you want is a position transfer, likely by ACATS. This is a transfer from one IRA to another without having to liquidate positions to do so. In effect, the brokerage firm is just transferring records from your existing IRA to your new IRA. You will need to watch out to make sure your new IRA account can hold your positions for this to work. For example, some brokerages allow you to hold fractional shares but others don't. (The fractional share amounts would be sold automatically prior to transfer.) Another example might be different fund families could be allowed between different brokerages. The general process is open your new IRA account, initiate the ACATS xfer from your new account, your old IRA account brokerage sends the positions over, and after a week or so your new IRA brokerage notifies you that everything is transferred. I've switched IRAs a couple times via this mechanism and never been charged a fee, but I've always stuck with the larger brokerages like Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d423ee78b68467721af9eb9d16c3d672",
"text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a75da40e4796f26d06554710e135ba",
"text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56c02b180ce5bd2911593743154dff9d",
"text": "Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.",
"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": "5768adeca0219e72d67ccb5dbb924ded",
"text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c9569033a3d0a5bd57b3b256ee4b5f2",
"text": "You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1075f7878643114cf6782d191f3599ae",
"text": "From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession. Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "023bbcb35b6fac3bd79d7081fb0cabdd",
"text": "You cannot just transfer or rollover from a traditional to a Roth IRA, because they are taxed differently. You'd have to do a distribution from your traditional (which will be taxed and possibly penalized, depending on your income and age), and a contribution to your Roth (which is limited based on annual contributions to all your IRAs). A conversion is not limited by dollar amount (unless you must take an RMD... required distributions may not be converted). There is no income limit for 2010 and beyond (previously $100k MAGI), and there are no penalties. However, all you must pay tax on all untaxed dollars - this means the original contributions as well as the growth. It all depends on the size of your IRA, your investment options, and your expected tax bracket at retirement. Traditional IRA distributions are considered income for the year, while Roth distributions are not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d9bd8a9bdb4e3c04b5204ac827f3a0",
"text": "Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22028b9b164f152a7d630d133b5eaffe",
"text": "3 Yes, a big yes, it cannot go into the account it came from. Then both accounts >can't be touched for a year. 3) Actually it looks like you can reinvest it in the same IRA account. Based on IRS publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html You can withdraw, tax free, all or part of the assets from one traditional IRA if you reinvest them within 60 days in the same or another traditional IRA. Because this is a rollover, you cannot deduct the amount that you reinvest in an IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27bec497641aba62dca43f9539efbc33",
"text": "Recommend using quickbooks for account management. If you use the manufacturing and wholesale you can track POs from vendors, estimates, bill payment quotes and invoicing (there's an editor to customize your set up)Also, most accountants are very familiar with this platform so come tax time they'll be able to give you a hand no problem. For accepting payments I highly suggest asking for checks. If you do accept credit cards keep in mind most payment processors charge a percent (1.5-3%) depending on transaction amounts and quantities of transactions. So you'll want to mark up your products by at least that amount. Another area is sales tax. Since you are not the end user you should be able to avoid sales tax on the items you will be selling to customers. You then charge the customer this sales tax. Not sure about NJ but in Texas we are 8.25%. I then pay the state of Texas the taxes collected quarterly. Edit: also make sure you have separate finances for the LLC. Separate checking, separate credit card, separate everything! If you end up using an account that is tied to you personally then you run into the risk of losing the protective nature of an LLC from a legal standpoint. Edit2: by separate I mean using your IRS issued EIN number to open accounts with the LLC name. When you sign anything on behalf of the company make sure to add the name of the company next to it to show the company is making the signature not you. For instance u/sexlessnights Company name, LLC",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
72bea4c9d1339ff62d8b35afd695a687
|
How does a CFD work behind the scenes?
|
[
{
"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": "7e752ab7ea0f45f9753fb227fc7c0d11",
"text": "We aren't faking it. IT is an extremely complex job so we often have to learn or relearn a technology at the whim of some bean counter because they want to save a few bucks or a junior executive because they attended a seminar and want to try that cool new thing they heard about (cough, DevOps, cough...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c228b923306614c984e13541acecbf3",
"text": "My company has a dashboard that basically does this. We select industries / companies we want to be notified of and we get an email in outlook when a new analyst note, research report, or SEC filing is posted on that industry or company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9caccb962d6f961a4e0a4490e6e7096",
"text": "IB's overnight financing cost for US CFDs below $100,000 is the Benchmark Rate + 1.5% for long positions and the Benchmark Rate -1.5% for short positions. You can check the IB CFD Contract Interest for their full list of financing costs for share CFDs. IB's commissions for an executed trade (where your monthly volume is below $300,000) is $0.005 per share with a minimum per order of $1.00. Commissions and overnight financing are 2 different fees, the overnight financing is charged because CFDs are leveraged. An order is just that, it is not a trade. It means your order has not been executed yet and is still an active order which you have not paid any commissions for yet. Regarding the orders that persist overnight, an example might be, you place an order to buy to open 200 CFDs. If only 100 CFDs are traded on that day, and the remaining 100 CFDs of your order remains active overnight, it will be considered a new order for the purposes of determining commission minimums.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "affca50008f37c4c32001f49b5da4822",
"text": "I'm not that familiar with them, but as I understand it Eladian is mostly run by Automated Trading Desk guys. (Don't get me wrong ADT was definitely a strong firm at its prime, but I think Citi really gutted it). I'm sure they have some ex-Citadel people there, but I'm not sure how important they were (I could be wrong, like I said I don't know who's at Eladian). Without dropping names, Headwinds snagged the researcher who pretty much wrote all of Citadel's core HFT algorithms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e508e58a6af2695c9b32f3f8514b04b",
"text": "1) Yes, there are. Advances in materials or aerodynamics reduce fuel consumption thereby reducing carbon emissions. 2) There is plenty of evidence that businesses act to reduce costs. Any important question is how they measure carbon emissions. Are the emissions charges reduced with more efficient aircraft? Airlines may find ways to reduce the charges in ways that don't necessarily help the environment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505c9939253e1a67b2af05457365a6bb",
"text": "As many people here have pointed out, a CFD is a contract for difference. When you invest in stock at eToro, you buy a CFD reflecting a bid on the price movement of the underlying stock, however, you do not actually own the stock or hold any rights shareholders have. The counterparty to the CFD is eToro. When you close your position, eToro shall pay you the amount representing the difference between your buy and sell price for each stock. I suggest you read the following article about CFDs, it explains everything clearly and thoroughly: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/trade-a-cfd.asp#axzz2G9ZsmX3A As some of the responders have pointed out, and as is mentioned in the article, a broker can potentially misquote the prices of underlying assets in order to manipulate CFDs to their advantage. However, eToro is a highly reputable broker, with over 2 million active accounts, and we guarantee accurate stock quotes. Furthermore, eToro is regulated in Europe (Germany, UK, France, etc.) by institutions that exact strict regulations on the CFD trading sector, and we are obligated to comply with these regulations, which include accurate price quoting. And of course, CFD trading at eToro has tremendous benefits. Unlike a direct stock investment, eToro allows you to invest as much or as little as you like in your favorite stocks, even if the amount is less than the relevant stock price (i.e. fraction stocks). For example: if you invest $10 in Microsoft, and on the day of execution eToro’s average aggregated price was $30 after a spread of 0.1%, you will then have a CFD representing 0.33 stocks of Microsoft in your eToro account. In addition, with eToro you can invest in stock in the context of a social trading network, meaning that you can utilize the stock trading expertise of other trader to your advantage by following them, learning their strategies, and even copying their stock investments automatically. To put it briefly, you won’t be facing the stock market alone! Before you make a decision, I suggest that you try stock trading with an eToro demo account. A free demo account grants you access to all our instruments at real market rates, as well as access to our social network where you can view and participate in trader discussions about trading stocks with eToro, all without risking your hard earned money. Bottom line – it’s free, there are no strings attached, and you can get a much firmer idea of what trading stocks with eToro is like. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us through our site: www.etoro.com.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c0022c9123f09d4d1f69dcf4beedd4",
"text": "\"In May 2011, a report to the board by Promontory Financial Group, a Washington consultant hired as part of the CFTC Dooley settlement, concluded that the firm had vastly improved\"\" its systems and risk controls, and praised management for setting \"\"a tone at the top\"\" supporting \"\"best practices.\"\" I actually did some technology work for Promontory Financial Group for a short period. What a bunch of tools. They had a nice office in a newer office building in the business district of Washington DC, not far from the Treasury. Their \"\"server room\"\" was actually a closet. The number of servers they had produced a lot of heat. It had minimal ventiliation. Their solution? Bring in a portable A/C unit. Great, but due to the humidity and the amount of heat/energy transfer, it produced a lot of condensation runoff. There was no drain. The solution? Think of the largest Rubbermaid outdoor garbage can that you can buy, and put it under the unit to collect the condensation output. It was probably 50 gallons. It filled up in about three or four days, an indication of the output. Part of the nightly cleaning crew's responsibility was to bail (literally) the water out of the can, and put it in a mop bucket, and wheel it down to the cleaning closet that did have a sink and empty it. The can had wheels, but who would want to risk rolling 400 pounds of water on tinkery casters down a lavish passageway? Problem? On long weekends/holidays, there was no cleaning crew. So they purchased a \"\"Mister Sensaphone\"\" (yes there really was such a device), so that when the can started to overflow, the moisture detector would trigger, it would page the system administrator, and they would drive into the office and bail it out. All of that because they did not want to pay $30,000 to install additional ac capacity on the roof and ventilate their server room. I think they were actually proud of this setup, like it was a demonstration of some \"\"out of the box\"\" creativity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa511a77fafafded13c778a2239ddd6",
"text": "\"There is no secret sauce. Leadership and good decision making is an organic process. Sometimes, the Sr. VP is going to say, \"\"This quarter, it was more important to expand X through hiring than it was to upgrade Y infrastructure. Next quarter, we'll do Y. I know it sucks to have your project delayed, because you've worked very hard on it, but that's the decision we've made.\"\" The difficulty is when corporations get to the point where everyone is running around CYA, instead of admitting that real business constraints can mean that the best-laid plans have to be scrapped or delayed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571314d35b39aaa79c3fad8a33a7265",
"text": "Yes, just set aside the amount of money. If you buy a cfd long in a stock for a 1000$, set aside 1000$. If you buy a cfd short, set aside the same amount and include a stoploss at the value at which the money is depleted. In this case however, you can stil lose more, because of opening gaps. By doing this, you replicate the stock return, apart from the charged interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0964d9db32ade538d1fd0fdb8d764ecf",
"text": "Something really does seem seedy that if I invest $2500, that I'll make above 50k if the stock doubles. Is it really that easy? You only buy or sell on margin. Think of when the stock moves in the opposite direction. You will loose 50k. You probably didn't look into that. Investment will vanish and then you will have debt to repay. Holding for long term in CFD accounts are charged per day. Charges depends on different service providers. CFD isn't and should not be used for long term. It is primarily for trading in the short term, maybe a week at the maximum. Have a look at the wikipedia entry and educate yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d32795fb708850657d5f006b8a351b",
"text": "\"We used an internal billing system where we have Project numbers, overheads, and proposal numbers. Projects may or may not have a client backing them, Overheads are strictly that, overhead costs. In the chargeback system we utilize (written by yours truly) we devised an SLO (Service Level Offering) which is the default, PC and Default software such as Office, Adobe Reader, Windows etc... and the hardware itself plus depreciation. This, when analyzed with total Business Unit working manhours, can devise an hourly rate that we apply to all Projects/Overheads/Proposals through time booked to these account through the Timecard system. A rate of 3.00 per manhour worked is applied accross the business Unit. Additional costs are divied by percentage based on Timecards. If Employee A charges 50% time to Project 1, 40% to Project 2 and 10% to project C, then those percentages will be applied to divy out the additional IT costs to the various projects, and thus making these items billable back to the client. This lowers our Overhead costs, transfers cost from Cost Centre to Profit Centre and lowers our GMAF. As for external to IT, it often prevents shit from getting done. \"\"Hey man, can you help me for a second?\"\" \"\"RAAAAAAWWW GIMME CHARGE NUMBER!!!!!!!!\"\" and creates internal animosity between project managers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58e29c34fcc3a95022ae5988ef5a8eb5",
"text": "Every job that I've had, I have automated myself out of. I'm an engineer and have always designed the tools to create the final product rather than the final product itself. It's mostly an easy task and getting much easier. Ever since college when I was interning, I've questioned the implications of this and don't have any answers. In many ways things simultaneously take longer and shorter to come to pass.",
"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": "41edaece3a849c76e79e57d348b0c2b5",
"text": "No, CFD is not viable as a long term trading strategy. You have a minimum margin to maintain, and you are given X days to top up your margin should you not meet the margin requirements. Failure to meet margin requirements will result in a forced sell where you are no longer able to hold onto the stock. A long term trading strategy is where you hold onto the stock through the bad times of the company and keep it long enough to see the good times. However, with CFD, you may be forced to sell before you see the good times. In addition, you incur additional lending charges (e.g. 4%-6%) for the ability to leverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78cfcd228c6b57a256ce9a8742a60081",
"text": "I'm no pro with how all this stuff works, but you can make a company look more profitable. FedEx structure is pretty complex and I'm no MBA/Accountant. They have like 7 companies under the FedEx Corporation shell company and 100's of accountant and lawyers. I'm sure this is true of many fortune 500 companies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5578dcebb5e0bba71c962efd812f874
|
Stocks: do Good Till Cancelled orders get executed during after hours?
|
[
{
"docid": "6a620ff4f8a59262eff925e15f8fb94b",
"text": "\"You'd have to check the rules for your broker to make sure that the term is being used in its usual sense, but the typical answer to your question is \"\"no.\"\" A GTC will execute during market hours. You would need to explicitly specify extended hours if you want to execute outside of market hours (which your broker may or may not support).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fe5999d61e2c4421932f9a2e290acf0",
"text": "When I place an order with Scottrade I also have to specify if I am wanting to trade outside of normal hours.",
"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": "1d4efbd49673d351688cc4aa7bffe166",
"text": "\"One practical application would be to protect yourself from a \"\"flash crash\"\" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches. If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3504646177c81bd2ab7056d0a1b40547",
"text": "In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this. For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account. I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction. On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6bb8e0577af89055b3264b4615720ba",
"text": "\"Not minutes, but hours. The \"\"ex-dividend\"\" date is the deadline for acquiring a stock to receive a dividend. If you hold a stock at the beginning of this day, you will receive the dividend. So you could buy a stock right at the end of the day on the day before the ex-dividend date, and sell it the next day (on the ex-dividend date), and you would get your dividend. See this page from the SEC for more information. The problem with this strategy, however, is that the value of the stock typically drops by the same amount as the dividend on that day. If you take a look at the historical price of the stock you are interested in, you'll see this. Of course, it makes sense why: a seller knows that selling before the date results in a loss of the dividend, so they want a higher price to compensate. Likewise, a buyer on or after the date knows that the dividend is already gone, so they want to pay a lower price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ebdb762ca62faa89843b89fb5db99de",
"text": "In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84eab1cccef725a0fed082edc3bf44f6",
"text": "\"All public US equity exchanges are closed on the 9 US trading holidays (see below) and open on all other days. Exchanges also close early (13:00 ET) on the Friday after Thanksgiving and on the day before Independence Day if Independence Day is being observed on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. (Some venues have extended trading hours as a matter of course; for them an \"\"early close\"\" might be later than 13:00 ET.) To answer the second question, yes, if you know NASDAQ's or AMEX's holiday schedule, then you know NYSE's (modulo the timing of their early close). I'm not sure about the options exchanges; they're not regulated the same way and are a good example of exchanges with extended trading hours in the first place. The US trading holidays are as follows. Note that trading holidays are not the same as federal or bank holidays, which include Columbus Day and Veterans Day but do not include Good Friday.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d06bd90c8c2f6535c34d228a6af19839",
"text": "I suspect this is related to the fact that Blue Apron completed its IPO very recently and insider shares are likely still under a lockup period. So in the case of APRN stock only the 30mm shares involved in the IPO are trading until the insider lockup expires which is usually about 90 days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5061169c2f03aa81b293446c30602627",
"text": "\"Yes there is, it is called a One-Cancels-the-Other Order (OCO). Investopedia defines a OCO order as: Definition of 'One-Cancels-the-Other Order - OCO' A pair of orders stipulating that if one order is executed, then the other order is automatically canceled. A one-cancels-the-other order (OCO) combines a stop order with a limit order on an automated trading platform. When either the stop or limit level is reached and the order executed, the other order will be automatically canceled. Seasoned traders use OCO orders to mitigate risk. I use CMC Markets in Australia, and they allow free conditional and OCO orders either when initially placing a buy order or after already buying a stock. See the Place New Order box below: Once you have selected a stock to buy, the number of shares you want to buy and at what price you can place up to 3 conditional orders. The first condition is a \"\"Place order if...\"\" conditional order. Here you can place a condition that your buy order will only be placed onto the market if that condition is met first. Say the stock last traded at $9.80 and you only want to place your order the next day if the stock price moves above the current resistance at $10.00. So you would Place order if Price is at or above $10.00. So if the next day the price moves up to $10 or above your order will be placed onto the market. The next two conditional orders form part of the OCO Orders. The second condition is a \"\"Stop loss\"\" conditional order. Here you place the price you want to sell at if the price drops to or past your stop loss price. It will only be placed on to the market if your buy order gets traded. So if you wanted to place your stop loss at $9.00, you would type in 9.00 in the box after \"\"If at or below ?\"\" and select if you want a limit or market order. The third condition is a \"\"Take profit\"\" conditional order. This allows you to take profits if the stock reaches a certain price. Say you wanted to take profits at 30%, that is if the price reached $13.00. So you would type in 13.00 in the box after \"\"If at or above ?\"\" and again select if you want a limit or market order. Once you have bought the stock if the stop order gets triggered then the take profit order gets cancelled automatically. If on the other hand the take profit order gets triggered then the stop loss order gets cancelled automatically. These OCO conditional orders can be placed either at the time you enter your buy order or after you have already bought the stock, and they can be edited or deleted at any time. The broker you use may have a different process for entering conditional and OCO orders such as these.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c8a2f3388bbbf640add2b9191acf853",
"text": "The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen. An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c1c77c490d96692be687075e977e86",
"text": "You can make a purchase at the after market price by sending an order that gets executed in after market. Often times these are called Extended orders, or EXT. With an EXT limit order it will place the bid on the after market hours order book. If you get filled, then you have the shares. This is the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d56cf7b2f6193eac92d57bd4a84e4d3b",
"text": "\"The answer to each of your questions is no. It is important to appreciate that the \"\"quoted\"\" ticker price may be delayed by say 15 minutes, and thus is not \"\"real-time.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ae57c52676b06d852420a2c9538018",
"text": "There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9",
"text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.",
"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": "e7b7c93adacde6bc4f0f5a51f59f48c9",
"text": "All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e7b248545326b8687dd46e4cb1828635
|
What name is given to a value such as this?
|
[
{
"docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62",
"text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dfe42c873491ca1cefe0d3f986e96815",
"text": "\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \"\"price\"\" is purely \"\"what people agree it to be\"\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \"\"discovering the price\"\" - it's an unknown until someone says \"\"I will pay X\"\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \"\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\"\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \"\"I will pay $60\"\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc3847d8114169b949d9e465c019279a",
"text": "That value differs between a starving man and a man who never fears lack of food. Let's take, instead, the value of your mother's affection. Were you to have to pay for that affection, for her hugs, they would lose value. Offering a price makes her affection worth LESS. Therefore value is not tied to currency, nor is value indelibly tied to Capitalism. Trading capital for your mother's affection negates the value of the affection.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4807fb92935204b4534635f3b9dedbd",
"text": "\"I've tried looking for sources, and I've found a few, but none of them seem to nail the exact material of what I'm asking about. I feel that these visceral questions about what is value in our world, and how we can redefine it outside the definitions from both governments and corporations, is an important zeitgeist to our modern era. Nobody asked me to do this, I am just drawn instinctively drawn to wonder about not only the workings of the world but its possibilities; the same way Adam Smith, Nikola Tesla, F.A. Hayek, and a few others have been drawn to in their lifetimes, even though they were criticized. They began asking questions and developing them over years in order to help others and build the world, and that is what I am and I was trying to do here. Not just to get the old formulas from a referential book, but to get real opinions in real time, because that's what matters; how our own kind define revolution or reformation, because aren't revolutionaries and entrepreneurs the same thing? The risk takers and idea makers that want to make a new world for everyone. The problem is when the definition of value by one entity is made the definition of everyone by force, and its causes only obstruction. “GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”--Mayer Amschel Rothschild \"\"It is not by augmenting the capital of the country, but by rendering a greater part of that capital active and productive than would otherwise be so, that the most judicious operations of banking can increase the industry of the country\"\"--Adam Smith Ironically, what both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed on was a fear that money would become an end to itself, which many people fear is true today. Shouldn't we ask these questions more often? I feel it's instinctive: http://www.businessinsider.com/economy-of-the-future-2012-10\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a3237946bbb31c267c8c9f20eb00e3c",
"text": "I'd probably call it an intangible or indirect benefit. Not sure what the trade term is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbefe50d05a17ab5e03bbdd33a74cb84",
"text": "\"**Modern portfolio theory** Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return. Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. *** **Option (finance)** In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) \"\"exercises\"\" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfce008a3bea0d55d073d6ecaa183625",
"text": "\"Gold had value because it could be stamped with a value. The value is the number on the coin. Gold really doesn't have intrinsic value and it's value during a actual famines is very very low. For more info, see a very interesting digression in \"\"Wealth of Nations.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f414701a90b9099a268d52c0acd3578f",
"text": "Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Keep it up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9847e66640bcf30db81505f3092a1c1f",
"text": "\"What's the value of the scholarship, and is it administered by itself or by the university? If by itself, the financial return discussed above drives. If by the university, they create the tuition, so it gets more interesting. If this is something that is administered and backstopped by the university, then keep in mind that while it may be named the \"\"John Doe Memorial Scholarship\"\" with $30000 in it's account under the endowment, the university overall is likely to cut some number of students' tuition in financial aid packages anyway. Let's say they substitute a generic tuition adjustment in past years with this happens-to-be-named \"\"John Doe Memorial Scholarship\"\" moving forward: the university can do this as long as they are not constrained in pricing power by laws and financial aid customs. There's the finance answer, and there's the fact that a university can create a \"\"coupon\"\" indefinitely (Similar in concept to the price discrimination where Proctor and Gamble can launch a new flavor of Tide at a high price to maintain the market position, and flood marketing channels with coupons) Also the university might find it to be an inexpensive benefit to the faculty to create a ceremony around a valued, deceased professor; collecting funds from other professors or staff to partially pay for it at finance price or even a slight loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181",
"text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "970c998a40f2d137c1137d46c0c6717c",
"text": "\"I might as well add my 2 cents here. Further to what robotik said, the intrinsic value is essentially the \"\"value contained within itself.\"\" As an entity, an item, an object - anything for that matter, the intrinsic value is what someone can benefit from it. In reference to the Water paradox asked by Yorn; my perspective is that water has an \"\"positive\"\" intrinsic value in either case because the intrinsic value of something is independent of who it affects and how it affects anyone. If humans were a species that was allergic to water and caught fire upon touching it - water would be considered to have a very \"\"negative\"\" intrinsic value. It doesn't matter the second person is drowning in water, the fact that water is an essential part of life - the intrinsic value of it is positive and unchanged. Perhaps the \"\"situational value\"\" would be a more subjective measure?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b9ae35eb128a2fcc6a93a1cd48c9cae",
"text": "The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst. Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05fb22bec39ba639a5e5e1d1d355b2fe",
"text": "The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a36dad5328565bc5ddca2e2b3bcdb6",
"text": "\"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the \"\"value\"\" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may \"\"double\"\", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost \"\"half\"\" its value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "866805d80dc681862ebed49508181e9c",
"text": "\"Ok this is random but now I am super curious -- how can one argue plastic's inability to store value comes artificially/by opinion? As a man-made good, are there not any finite restrictions on its creation? It reminds me of the Golgafringians of Douglas Adams' *Life, the Universe, and Everything* when they attempted to make leaves a currency. Or do you argue something along the lines that plastic's value is artificial in the same manner as the dollar -- whether it is paper or plastic it can represent a promised/existing product despite its potentially infinite nature? And yeah, I know \"\"potentially infinite\"\" is a TERRIBLE term given the finite nature of anything on earth required to make plastic...but I couldn't come up with a better term though I am sure one exists\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5ea19b610533a99bf04ad7efb369d03c
|
May I Invest as a non accredited investor?
|
[
{
"docid": "253c15553b75d266c1ef711891f4cf09",
"text": "Does me holding stock in the company make me an accredited investor with this company in particular? No. But maybe the site will let you trade it your shares to another accredited investor. Just ask, if the site operators have a securities lawyer they should be able to accomodate",
"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": "8db27ee81bd560ebffd3fb540b8b6b7c",
"text": "I think you have to refer to it (i.e. a hedge fund) as more of a legal structure rather than from an investment perspective. Hedge Funds are generally private investment vehicles that require large capital contributions (whether the hedge fund is set up as a 3c(7) or a 3c(1) structure). Doesn't matter what the relative investment strategy is (long only, long/short, levered, distressed debt, model defined, etc.) 3(c)(7) = qualified purchaser status = Min worth of $25,000,000 3(c)(1) = accredited investor status = less than qualified purchaser status, but still requires certain income limits. Just my two cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d822c3cf1243e46b174e18696bf6c8",
"text": "\"Investing is not the same as illegal drugs. One does not start with pot and progress to things like heroin in order to get a better high. Penny stocks are a fools game and not an entry into the world of investing. The charts you mentioned are fake and likely the result of pump and dump schemes as my colleagues have pointed out in the comments. They have no bearing on investing. Good investment grade companies have many peaks and valleys over time. Look at any company you are familiar with Apple, Google, Tesla, GE, Microsoft, etc... One has a few choices in getting \"\"into investing\"\" to name a few: All of those are valid and worthy pursuits. Read books by Jack Bogle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1479bfc3f23662f17bdf12c0074e13f8",
"text": "\"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do. Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a \"\"no buy\"\" for me. If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand. I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say. I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one. Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine. Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b30ca28a9511d1c987202b799849f608",
"text": "\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e0d9dbc09105ab8b27d8604bfd88f35",
"text": "Off the top of my head I can think of 10 prop shops in Chicago that don't require any sort of certifications. Most those certification requirements are there only when you are managing outside investor money. I was under the impression you are just trading the firm's capital, not outside investor capital, which is why I asked (which, to me, is the definition of a prop shop.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8677ffa9c1ac3a3f5bca189a6db0e873",
"text": "You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8730be753a1406fab4444dcbb40296f3",
"text": "Here are the SEC requirements: The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in Rule 501 of Regulation D as: a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company; an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million; a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million; a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities; a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors; a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person; a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes. No citizenship/residency requirements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2",
"text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c",
"text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7",
"text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56e26472679528b27c870a725255aefd",
"text": "Thanks chrissundberg for providing the outline of the JOBS Act. Under the current rules, my understanding is that a non-public company can have up to 35 unaccredited investors, which doesn't really work within a crowdfunding environment. Am I correct in that?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "363c2829224280e5295cefae7404911e",
"text": "In the US, illegal. Giving free investment advice (opinions) is really hard to get arrested for. Might lose you a friend, but nothing that would get cross-wise with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That said, I would never put those opinions in writing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "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": "f6f3af904870fa87141b1519e22bcd73",
"text": "Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations). Crowdsourcing probably implies an average <$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box) As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points. As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two. At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3fdf7f9e572abab71fb88189bbbea5c0
|
What can I do to remedy ISA cash/shares transfer latency?
|
[
{
"docid": "747be3bebcd79dbf81948b93a3a6ae4b",
"text": "\"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "174c30049d3abf11b1afc50b37a62f2c",
"text": "While I don't disagree that Wells is trash, it may not be intentional reordering on their part. Some merchants don't settle their machines in a timely manner which can delay an item from posting. So while they were run first, and the funds were probably held in the correct order awaiting posting, the last item CAN clear first due to this. I would reach out to the bank for fee reversals, using the receipts as proof of transaction order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0",
"text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c0b89345b97cedbae31d67280424bad",
"text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a3d909a8a8d15a3b73e158a461de0",
"text": "I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d9228e10db25f68942d77425abb2fd5",
"text": "It takes about 4-5 workdays, maybe it depends on the day also when you start the transfer. I transferred an amount last Wednesday, and the same amount on Thursday too. Both transactions hit the destination account on the next Tuesday, with a difference of 2 minutes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f9132bfd66f5c32c2f8d94f859edcbc",
"text": "\"Here's the detailed section of IRS Pub 590 It looks like you intended to have a \"\"trustee to trustee conversion\"\", but the receiving trustee dropped their ball. The bad news is, a \"\"rollover contribution\"\" needed to be done in 60 days of the distribution. There is good news, you can request an extension from the IRS, with one of the reasons if there was an error by one of the financial institutions involved. Other waivers. If you do not qualify for an automatic waiver, you can apply to the IRS for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement. To apply for a waiver, you must submit a request for a letter ruling under the appropriate IRS revenue procedure. This revenue procedure is generally published in the first Internal Revenue Bulletin of the year. You must also pay a user fee with the application. The information is in Revenue Procedure 2016-8 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2016-1 available at www.irs.gov/irb/2016-01_IRB/ar14.html. In determining whether to grant a waiver, the IRS will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: Whether errors were made by the financial institution (other than those described under Automatic waiver , earlier); Whether you were unable to complete the rollover due to death, disability, hospitalization, incarceration, restrictions imposed by a foreign country, or postal error; Whether you used the amount distributed (for example, in the case of payment by check, whether you cashed the check); and How much time has passed since the date of distribution. You can also see if you can get ETrade to \"\"recharacterize\"\" the equity position to your desired target IRA. The positive here is that the allowed decision window for calendar year 2016 rollovers is October 15 2017; the negatives are this is irrevocable, and restricts certain distributions from the target for a year (unlikely to impact your situation, but, you know, \"\"trust but verify\"\" anonymous internet advice); and it requires ETrade to recognize the original transaction was a rollover to a Roth IRA, which they currently don't. But if their system lets them put it through you could end up with the amount in a traditional IRA with no other taxable events to report, which appears to be your goal. Recharacterization FAQ\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0700971fbc357b77224692f5644dac4a",
"text": "The person you're talking to is probably someone in the company. They need to convey the message to their bank. So you need to explain it to them as if they were 3 year old kids. You may be used to SWIFT transactions because that's how you always get paid, but unless the UK firm regularly employes Russian freelancers, this is probably the first time ever they have heard of it. Similarly, someone in the local branch of their community bank has probably never heard of it before either. In Europe they use IBANs and SWIFTs are rather uncommon. Be patient, explain the issue and the solution in as many words as you can, and suggest them putting you on speaker at the bank so that you could talk directly to the person executing the transaction. If you do the same on your side and let the bankers talk directly to each other - that would probably be ideal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09c6c548e583d6ef140969061e5176f",
"text": "As per the SIPC website: Most customers can expect to receive their property in one to three months. When the records of the brokerage firm are accurate, deliveries of some securities and cash to customers may begin shortly after the trustee receives the completed claim forms from customers, or even earlier if the trustee can transfer customer accounts to another broker-dealer. Delays of several months usually arise when the failed brokerage firm’s records are not accurate. It also is not uncommon for delays to take place when the troubled brokerage firm or its principals were involved in fraud. Source link: http://www.sipc.org/Who/SIPCQuestions/SIPCQuestion3.aspx",
"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": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9",
"text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> | +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of ABC | +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of ABC | +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £10k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £11k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £13k of cash | +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- | +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> | +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04505861658ff9ebfb9874a0c99f59c",
"text": "\"Your bank Lloyds sent the Australian bank $500 AUD, having converted $317.90 GBP at a rate of 1.5728 AUD per GBP which was slightly less than the published rate which normally applies to transfers measured in hundred thousands if not millions of pounds. Using the published rate amounts to an unstated fee of 11 AUD which you are not complaining about. You also paid a fee to Lloyds of 20 GBP which you disclosed after I had posted this answer. The Australian bank refused to accept the payment because the account to which the money had to be deposited was closed. Perhaps, instead of just sending back $500 AUD, it converted the amount to GBP (less its fee of what I suspect is $60 AUD) and sent it back. Notice that the bank rate of 1.592 AUD per GBP says that 276.58 GBP is what you get from a tad over $440 AUD, and so perhaps St George's charged you a $60 AUD fee for the conversion while converting the rest ($440 AUD) to GBP. Or maybe Lloyds got $500 AUD from St Georges and charged you a $60 AUD fee for converting it to GBP. Regardless of who did the conversion, it is also possible that the rate you got (not quite as good as the published rate) corresponds to $450 AUD converting to 276.58 GBP and a $50 AUD fee for the conversion. You said I was told by Lloyds TSB that St. Georges wouldn't levy any charges, as they would be paid a separate \"\"agent's fee\"\". This might have been told to you as \"\"St. Georges will not be levying any charges if you send $500 AUD for deposit to the account in Australia and your payee will get exactly $500 AUD if you pay us 317.90 GBP plus 20 GBP as our conversion fee today. If you want to send GBP instead, we cannot tell you how much to send because St. George's will levy a charge for conversion to AUD, and the conversion will be at the rate then prevailing. So your payee may receive more or less than $500 AUD.\"\" Perhaps, wanting to send exactly $500 AUD, you chose to pay Lloyds TSB and send AUD. But, since the account was closed, the money came back, and so you ended up paying yet another conversion fee. The questions are, who charged the second fee? As Muro said in a comment, it should be listed somewhere on the itemized statement. and is it a reasonable charge? I think $50 or $60 AUD is excessive but, then, I am not a bank, and maybe that is what their standard (minimum) charge is. As I said in my comment, the charge is usually a percentage of the amount transferred subject to a minimum levy that the bank sets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46cc17c4ec1ccbf1b920fc7420ab3ade",
"text": "You're overthinking it. The ISA limit applies to the amount you invest into the ISA. In your example, £10,000. Whether that then fluctuates with performance is irrelevant. Even if you realise aprofit or a loss, nobody is watching it. You merely count the amount you originally contributed into the ISA wrapper. When they add up to £15,000; that's the limit reached. (And by the way, remember that only money going into the ISA is counted. It doesn't matter if you -let's say - put £15k in, then remove 10k. You've reached the limit. You don't again have the chance to put £10k 'back in'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed8bf7342dacdca59824555d53f7ff7",
"text": "The reason it's not automatic is that Questrade doesn't want to force you to convert in margin accounts at the time of buying the stock. What if you bought a US stock today and the exchange rate happened to be very unfavorable (due to whatever), wouldn't you rather wait a few days to exchange the funds rather than lose on conversion right away? In my opinion, Questrade is doing you a favor by letting you convert at your own convenience.",
"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": "1020c04a207e3f79fa26ae09276bcb99",
"text": "One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
20e3e2e07517c31c3db202d71cd160ab
|
Hdgs to be removed from the S&P/ASX Indices
|
[
{
"docid": "dfd51b3ed342ca374cd054ca6b806335",
"text": "As I said in the comments, from the SMH article, you will get $3.30 per share you hold in Wotif. The bit about Wotif veing replaced in the S&P ASX200 index by another company has no impact on your shares in Wotif. It just means that the index (the amalgamation of 200 companies) will have one drop out (Wotif) and another replace it (Healthscope).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c287e5af3ece0bb6ceabfbf809e21f8e",
"text": "There are a number of ways this can result. In a broad ETF, such as SPY, the S&P 500 spider, the S&P index will have 500 stocks no matter what, so a buyout would simply result in a re-shuffling of the index makeup. No buyout will happen so quickly that there's no time to choose the next stock to join the index. In your case, if the fund manager (per the terms of the prospectus) wishes to simply reallocate the index to remove the taken-over stock that's probably how he handle it. Unless of course, the prospectus dictates otherwise. In which case, a cash dividend is a possible alternative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a9ccb93058b7630955699cdcd88ddbd",
"text": "This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy: I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen: Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4303dc4fdce909f8af8b9e3d983cc1f",
"text": "Because the distribution date was APR 21, 2011, THAT should be the correct date for ascertainng the stock prices of the GM stock and warrants. The subsequent distributions after April should also be allocated in accordance with their distribution dates, with tax basis being reduced from the original APR 21st date's allocations, and reallocated to those subsequent distributions, taking into account any interim sales you might have made.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43ebac4a47c1dd39672ccb1576d136ca",
"text": "I'd call it pretty worrisome. HOOB is trading over the counter, in fact, on the pink sheets, so it has been delisted from the major exchanges. It appears that it lacks recent financial disclosures. You'll have to investigate to see if you think it's worth keeping, but trading is thin.",
"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": "62fce22d874701280896565f7ce28c74",
"text": "\"Pension- and many \"\"low-risk\"\" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds. While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds. It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating. However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11039963d89778913a087c6edd322ab5",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/maurice-blackburn-weighs-cba-class-action-20170823-gy235k) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Law firm Maurice Blackburn and ASX-listed litigation funder IMF Bentham are preparing to launch a class action against Commonwealth Bank of Australia alleging failures to disclose to the stockmarket AUSTRAC&#039;s investigation of its anti money laundering shortcomings. > Disclosure should have been as early as August 17, 2015, the class action will argue - the date CBA released its annual report and a retail booklet for a $5 billion rights issue. > CBA has around 800,000 retail shareholders but under class action law, only those who purchased shares and held some of them during the period of alleged non-disclosure will be able to participate in the action. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vikty/maurice_blackburn_weighs_cba_class_action/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~196808 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*: **CBA**^#1 **action**^#2 **class**^#3 **AUSTRAC**^#4 **case**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede",
"text": "I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "def648b0f1e2398f7fe7edaa820838d7",
"text": "I would not sell unless the stock is starting to fall in price. If you are a long term investor you can review the weekly chart on a weekly basis to determine if the stock is still up-trending. Regarding HD below is a weekly chart for the last 4 years: Basically if the price is making Higher Highs (HH) and Higher Lows (HL) it is up-trending. If it starts to make Lower Lows (LL) followed by Lower Highs (LH) then the uptrend is over and the stock could be entering a downtrend. With HD, the price has been up-trending but seems to now be hitting some headwinds. It has been making some HHs followed by some HLs throughout the last 2 years. It did make a LL in late August 2015 but then recovered nicely to make a new HH, so the uptrend was not broken. In early November 2016 it made another LL but this time it seems to be followed by a LH in mid-December 2016. This could be clear evidence that the uptrend may be ending. The final confirmation would be if the price drops below the early November low of $119.20 (the orange line). If price drops below this price it would be confirmation that the uptrend is over and this should be the point at which you should sell your HD shares. You could place an automatic stop loss order just below $119.20 so that you don't even need to monitor the stock frequently. Another indication that the uptrend may be in trouble is the divergence between the HHs of the price and the peaks of a momentum indicator (in this case the MACD). The two sloping red lines show that the price made HHs in April and August 2016 whilst the momentum indicator made LHs at these peaks in the price. As the lines are sloping in different directions it is demonstrating negative divergence, which means that the momentum of the uptrend is slowing down and can act as an early warning system to be more cautious in the near future. So the question you could be asking is when is a good time to sell out of HD (or at least some of your HD to rebalance)? Why sell something that is still increasing in price? Only sell if you can determine that the price will not be increasing anymore in the near to medium term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8",
"text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d542d9c12741601382214e526bfc569",
"text": "One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700",
"text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "813858cf2f0c16b3f5c4ca408f424b67",
"text": "Like in the US, more flexibility is extended to hidden orders. Australia has taken an aggressive approach to hidden orders in the direction of lower ticks. Aussies have a rich financial that evolved differently than the Dutch custom more familiarly known in the UK and US. They, like Chicago evolved out of commodities trade rather than trade. When commodities are worth nearly nothing per unit, larger precision comes naturally. For the Dutch, it was the opposite. A single ship would trade in 1/64 share or for the largest vessels, 1/128 share. Here, there's no point to high precision. New York, founded by the Dutch specialized in logistics just the same. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so both Chicago, Australia, and other financial systems built by commodities rather than trade have extended the higher precision logic to everything else, and pricing is fantastic. It should not be a surprise why Australia has taken a lead in pushing infinite precision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5baeb8780d8466112dbb69e6084318a",
"text": "Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6b6f34e6af19228c13d0ee80944cdd1",
"text": "Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it. That makes sense. What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied. As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not. Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
abfaa49297ff9df5653c50a7e0b4006b
|
Definition of “U.S. source” for US non-resident alien capital gains tax
|
[
{
"docid": "28f92e26dcc503d4c07d8bac7f07e7a4",
"text": "\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4902a1a39912a3dd74a0f67c18da2907",
"text": "\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c483acb58363d9f4b5159678bd56c98e",
"text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3a3447a48bcef183f29199d563d0e38",
"text": "This depends on the state law. In case of the State of New York - these are the criteria for sourcing the NY income: As a sole proprietor or partnership, your New York source income includes: Business activities As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership, you carry on a business, trade, profession, or occupation within New York State if you (or your business): As you can see, the qualification depends on the way you do business, and the amount of business transactions you have in New York. If it is not clear to you - talk to a CPA/EA licensed to practice in the State of New York to give you an advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51b98857496db91ad880cc721db0c57c",
"text": "\"That's a very clear explanation, thanks! So a few additional things if anyone will humor my curiosity... 1. By \"\"one-time\"\" tax, does that mean a company that has, say, $5B overseas could bring that back into the US and just be taxed $500M, then keep the remaining $4.5B? 2. Could a company choose a percentage of their overseas money to transfer into the US? Like, only bring in 8% of that $5B ($400M) and be taxed $40M, while keeping all the rest outside the US? Or would it be mandatory to bring it all over? 3. Would most companies just start that same practice of routing to tax havens again after this tax is implented?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fce735a06d3dd36302147dbd99a66d",
"text": "It depends and I would not just jump into conclusion as I have seen cases where offering some services are not U.S. sourced income. I'll advise you speak with a knowledgeable tax professional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9438f2630d7f0c5e6cdb291a7a68cca1",
"text": "\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \"\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0c964ba22d93e8451148742228fe18",
"text": "Resident Alien is liable for the same taxes as a citizen. Citizenship has nothing to do with taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6681aab67e513952ed9e5130e3f33fcc",
"text": "\"If you're a US citizen, money earned while in the US is sourced to the US. So you can't apply FTC/FEIE to the amounts attributable to the periods of your work while in the US even if it is a short business trip. Tax treaties may affect this. Most tax treaties have explicit provisions to exclude short trips from the sourcing rules, however due to the \"\"saving clause\"\" these would probably not apply to you if you're a US citizen - you'll need to read the relevant treaty. Your home country should allow credit for the US taxes paid on the US-sourced income, and the double-taxation avoidance provision should apply in this case. The technicalities depend on your specific country. You would probably not just remove it from the taxable income, there probably is a form similar to the US form 1116 to calculate the available credit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc",
"text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "672368e4f1a321237b645b7c0c118709",
"text": "Just going to point out that the $5.2 figure includes gains from outside of the us. Considering he said that we gained that money, it'd be pretty normal to interpret it as part of the domestic gains. Also Wilbur Ross is trump's secretary of commerce and part of the administrstion, trump getting figures from him is still his responsibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5710a9517113ced432ead99b5b195a7",
"text": "Corporations are taxed on their profits. Multinational corporations can report their profits in any country they have operations, regardless of where they made the sale. In other words, it's impossible to nail down exactly where a company 'made it's money'. So the US doesn't try, we just tax them on earnings everywhere, minus taxes paid elsewhere. edit for clarity",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffe42a6e748797d0223dd014d46a1239",
"text": "As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db571656437f699d18b3d7941b386abd",
"text": "Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36706f4360e99cea6ac360524843ed67",
"text": "Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea3b76c9bc4a83a7c76e268447c578ba
|
question about short selling stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "3e6d01e0013c0462160dddf726125ad0",
"text": "If you had an agreement with your friend such that you could bring back a substantially similar car, you could sell the car and return a different one to him. The nature of shares of stock is that, within the specified class, they are the same. It's a fungible commodity like one pound of sand or a dollar bill. The owner doesn't care which share is returned as long as a share is returned. I'm sure there's a paragraph in your brokerage account terms of service eluding to the possibility of your shares being included in short sale transactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df8b80932ace9a829c5d2f8d29fb8fc3",
"text": "The original owner of the shares can pledge their shares to be short, and they earn interest from lending their shares. The conditions of this arrangement are detailed in standard agreements all market participants sign with their broker, or clearinghouse, or with the exchange, or with the self regulatory agency. Stocks within the same class are identical, despite someone's sentiment to an old share certificate that their grandparents gave them, and as such can be sold and returned to the beneficial owner multiple times with no difference. That is how it is supposed to work anyway, as naked shorting involves selling fictional shares that have no beneficial owner. So there are market inefficiencies in this practice, but the agreements between market participants are sound and answers your question about how.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55cb5b9ae06e3904e268112a5940bf42",
"text": "\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "36b8b1af37a467e92fa7713c0d929db8",
"text": "How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e8bee63310019eab33d01a57e57cdc",
"text": "I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "485023b813893e67c05daaa3fd16dd2d",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c494d981cd42f26b230f546bd8aa58c1",
"text": "If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e745f9e72315642dbae7074b2fb9b73c",
"text": "Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571314d35b39aaa79c3fad8a33a7265",
"text": "Yes, just set aside the amount of money. If you buy a cfd long in a stock for a 1000$, set aside 1000$. If you buy a cfd short, set aside the same amount and include a stoploss at the value at which the money is depleted. In this case however, you can stil lose more, because of opening gaps. By doing this, you replicate the stock return, apart from the charged interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6767af220ac2a9692b2d8eeef35eaf91",
"text": "The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9058b6755c59aa95043d2ea72c11b6a",
"text": "\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4894f981a005fe6d1bc95629a65b44ea",
"text": "Your question has 6 questions marks along with comments on what you'd like to know. Yes, there are stocks that are tough to short, a combination of low float, high current short positions, etc. Interest charged on the position rises in a supply/demand fashion. To unwind the position, there's always going to be stock available to buy. A shortage of willing sellers will cause the price to go up, but you'll see a bid/ask and the market will clear, i.e. The buy order fills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "addf4205f791ae7ee5c2e20c1632738a",
"text": "Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fbc5abcbd2af5afae59de619f19576c",
"text": "The problem with short options is they expire and have to be covered. An inverse ETF is the way to go in my opinion. Because the real issue isn't if the market is overvalued but when will it correct. That's the risk and no one knows that answer",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fff007ae6a97c5126436e7624320dc4a",
"text": "why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8736d56777f6b7edd7ee1522b2e2547d",
"text": "It's extremely divisible. The smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC. This smallest unit is called a satoshi, after the pseudonym of the inventor of Bitcoin. I suggested to my friends and family back in mid 2015 that they invest a little of their money. Nobody did. Back then I bought 21 BTC at around $600 USD/BTC for a total value of slightly less than $13k USD. Currently it's worth over $90k. I can't tell you how many of them say they wish they had listened to me. Then when I tell them they should still buy they think it's too late. It's not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ed84d3aa08bda067aa7d7a130abad0ae
|
Market makers role
|
[
{
"docid": "3d2cdeb70a1d9048134fa6a960acb48a",
"text": "The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "656fb040050e21c9676a9f63858ab091",
"text": "\"I agree completely. \"\"I don't always agree with John Cochrane, but when I do, I agree completely.\"\" I think heavy reliance on either approach to pricing is generally a bad idea. Equilibrium models always include something that you're supposed to inherently know, but never do. No-arbitrage models don't necessarily *say* anything that you don't (in some mathematical sense) already know. So you're either stuck with unknown parameters, or you can't explain why you're something is worth what you say it is beyond, \"\"Herp derp, other people are doing it.\"\" So I think if buy-side people made some use of no-arbitrage models, they'd have a better understanding of the parameters they're making up, and if sell-side people sometimes used equilibrium models, they'd have a better grasp of what's going on economically. Also, it would have the beneficial effect of reminding people that their models are always wrong, even if they're frequently useful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f4a5e4798a354bef97d76fb8098cc32",
"text": "Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e41ef4b9940ca49475e3d19f3ff89f56",
"text": "I understand what you mean, but for the general population the technicalities of secondary market is fundamentally a grey area. However, in my opinion, leading financial institutions such as GS, I expect them to make prudent decisions that is both ethical & sustainable for the society as whole, even though it might not be feasible all the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4b8d686853d665a8ffeaa6c4f58686f",
"text": "We will help to develop your business or selling of your services to national or international customers through the social media at the various platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and much more. We believe over the past decade, there has been a fundamental shift in the revenue creation process. Our role and responsibilities is to innovative marketers social media marketing companies and sales people to bridge the gap between their business units to improve sales funnel visibility company performance. For further more details about the seo-daddy, feel free to call us on +971 504019757.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57133597d661974ecdbde235ef6f4c4a",
"text": "Markets are rational in the long term. Actors act rationally given the knowledge they have. They don't have perfect knowledge - meaning they're prone to make mistakes. However, in the LONG run, every would be a equilibrium. Facebook stock is clearly over valued and the market is adjusting to the real price. Nothing spectacular going on there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0727ee15ad017f5dcd0398d0687c11d5",
"text": "popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time. Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required. A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC. As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74bcf155ce6e68c393de6a773e4561d1",
"text": "\"I was the one who made the beating you to the punch comment. That liquidity is worthless without an active market. That's the whole point of liquidity. An ability to sell back when needed. High volume means nothing when the fucking HFT buys all the stock and holds you hostage to his sell price. The only thing raising the price of pineapples is high speed trading. They only buy OR sell **when they see a bid.** That is not a traditional market maker. Please, tell me how that is wrong. That is not a rhetorical question. edit: If a pineapple is listed at 6.00 let's say you decide to buy and throw it in your cart. A store employee overhears you saying \"\"I'd be willing to pay 6.02 for this\"\". The employee tells the cashier to raise the price to 6.02 right before you get to the register. This is HFT in a nutshell. It doesn't provide an active pineapple market because the pineapple was only being offered once a buyer was lined up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20294785f5a7809202658ec5ed066a76",
"text": "\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb",
"text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b40e7ce58e2e0e0b42c64c825ceec17d",
"text": "The traditional role of a stockbroker is to arrange for the buying and selling of stock by finding buyers and sellers at an agreed upon price. The broker does not purchase the stock for himself but merely arranges for the stock to be traded. A trader is one who purchases stock with the hope of selling it for a gain. The trader will use a broker to help with the purchase and sale of a stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bada6c854343fb7d5ca949eb55eca134",
"text": "\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "554c3faf49ab2a735c81628c8f6001af",
"text": "I would say it's a bit more complicated than that. Do you understand what a market maker does? An ECN (electronic communication network) is a virtual exchange that works with market makers. Using a rebate structure that works by paying for orders adding liquidity and charges a fee for removing liquidity. So liquidity is created by encouraging what are essentially limit orders, orders that are outside of the current market price and therefore not immediately executable. These orders stay in the book and are filled when the price of the security moves and triggers them. So direct answer is NYSE ARCA is where market makers do their jobs. These market makers can be floor traders or algorithmic. When you send an order through your brokerage, your broker has a number of options. Your order can be sent directly to an ECN/exchange like NYSE ARCA, sent to a market making firm like KCG Americas (formerly Knight Capital), or internalized. Internalization is when the broker uses an in house service to execute your trade. Brokerages must disclose what they do with orders. For example etrade's. https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf This is a good graphic showing what happens in general along with the names of some common liquidity providers. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-20/how-your-buy-order-gets-filled",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6590ecc6b4a69571c3a81eb2aee1eb8d",
"text": "For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e23e5f9545636f5431c911d953156a45",
"text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
27395b4dd21ab5c899620ac84fd1a39a
|
How does conversion of Secured Convertible Notes work?
|
[
{
"docid": "78c1dad9e8e61a6da10385bf32fbcf66",
"text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d1f834db0aa4222f7fcf6262e15b5ace",
"text": "If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again? Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abdf55b8e3aee2b6ddfaed7e3f5b5ee",
"text": "Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4312884f19663ad7e0d0e07b86898f",
"text": "You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdede2d6ab1995907a3815ae89f6983d",
"text": "it sounds like you don't have experience in this, and neither does your *investor*; which is a recipe for disaster (pun intended). Your first order of business is to check whether your investor is an *Accredited Investor* (google to see what it means), if s/he's not, **walk away**. If s/he's an accredited investor, find a lawyer who can help you navigate this process, however these are the issues: * lawyers are expensive, and lawyers who have experience in these type of transactions are even more expensive * you actually need 2 lawyers, one for you and one for the investor * if neither of you have experience, there will be a lot more billable hours from the lawyers..... In principle this can go 3 ways: 1. The investors give you a loan, you pay them interests on a periodic basis, and then also principal. Items to be negotiated: interest rates, repayment schedule, collateral, personal guarantees. Highly unlikely this is what the investors wants. 2. The Investors get equity. items to be negotiated: your compensation, % of ownership, how profits are divided, how profits are paid; who gets to decide what. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, a *Convertible Note*. There's a lot more, too much for a Reddit post. There's not an easy ELI5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2091e876d65d16a2472976058dc08912",
"text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d67d3a9f9940d33d75c8fbfa7f854d74",
"text": "The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b679633154acbe373b9083d360bc67",
"text": "No. Bonds don't work like that. When you buy a bond, you buy pieces of notional at a price. 1K denotes the amount you would get back at maturity (+ coupons), So the smallest piece size would be 1k. I've even seen 50K plus but thats for more illiquid products....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976",
"text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0",
"text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed8bf7342dacdca59824555d53f7ff7",
"text": "The reason it's not automatic is that Questrade doesn't want to force you to convert in margin accounts at the time of buying the stock. What if you bought a US stock today and the exchange rate happened to be very unfavorable (due to whatever), wouldn't you rather wait a few days to exchange the funds rather than lose on conversion right away? In my opinion, Questrade is doing you a favor by letting you convert at your own convenience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3091eda9cb4abbce57a1fd1559c2da15",
"text": "This is all answered in the prospectus. The money not yet invested (available/committed to a note but not yet funded) is held in pooled trust account insured by FDIC. Money funded is delivered to the borrower. Lending Club service their notes themselves. Read also my reviews on Lending Club.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a48564da87b5eb0b0cc3034531aa5dd7",
"text": "The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer. In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer. Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade. If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdb2c9e7a8162c2a1041367a9e534e2c",
"text": "They all basically mean the same thing - a type of debt than can be exchanged for (converted into) equity at some point. It's only the mechanics that can be different. A convertible bond is structured just like a regular bond - it (usually) pays periodic interest and has a face value that's due at maturity. The difference is that the bond holder has the option to exchange the debt for equity at some point during the life of the bond. There can be restrictions on when that conversion is possible, and they typically define a quantity of equity (number of shares) that the bond can be converted into. If the market price of the shares goes above a price that would make the shares more valuable than the bond, it's in the best interest of the bond holder to convert. A convertible note is typically used to describe a kind of startup financing that does not pay interest or have a face value that's redeemed, but instead is redeemed for equity as part of a later financing round. Rather than specifying a specific number of shares, the bond holder receives equity at a certain discount to the rest of the market. So they both are debt instruments that can turn into equity investments, just through different mechanisms. A debenture is a fancy word for unsecured debt, and convertible debt could be used to described either structure above, so those terms could mean either type of structure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "864377bc38eace23fc5c87a8d9cd31bd",
"text": "True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de8275802733d88deb52209a02a4bd5",
"text": "\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c9e5cce4bd6ac6a0717b2b08de124e3
|
Are assets lost in a bankruptcy valued at the time of loss, or according to current value?
|
[
{
"docid": "aa4741c68677d146703292d52bc6bff0",
"text": "You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27eac77085ef8132f3750af1c9f86670",
"text": "Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d1e46007a73134f5a59e6f5781bd63",
"text": "To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank. Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral. Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose. Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for. Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime. Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board. Maybe interest rates have spiked. Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property. In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed. Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up. (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on. This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value. During this time, the bank is out $200,000. That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b061042bc1a63291c7674d4992bb781f",
"text": "Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5bb582ddcd8c917d6198c11313a43a0",
"text": "Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581",
"text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82",
"text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a8c379b6f77302a89c99b6816ec0ad",
"text": "I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8658a97c1892504d56a0ec070df7d3",
"text": "If you have two other assets whose payoffs tomorrow are known and whose prices today are known, you can value it. Let's say you can observe a risk-free bond and a stock. Using those, you can calculate the state prices/risk-neutral probabilities. NOTE: You do not need to know the true probabilities. The value of your asset is then the state-price weighted sum of future payoffs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c34001b866ef2645fa7f2a902a9c870",
"text": "All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b8f26b9c664f83164a67fe7323ab686",
"text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1",
"text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0abf2d4619c289bdab3c1e7ba705521d",
"text": "\"A repossessed automobile will have lost some value from sale price, but it's not valueless. They market \"\"title loans\"\" to people without good credit on this basis so its a reasonably well understood risk pool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aafdddb3091909bfbfb4540db55893ac",
"text": "I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "980e48c749e05c0432b46adffc11cd8a",
"text": "Imagine a poorly run store in the middle of downtown Manhattan. It has been in the family for a 100 years but the current generation is incompetent regarding running a business. The store is worthless because it is losing money, but the land it is sitting on is worth millions. So yes an asset of the company can be worth more than the entire company. What one would pay for the rights to the land, vs the entire company are not equal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eba9f3d4075fd407da235b87ffd12e38",
"text": "Yes, the borrower is responsible for paying back the full amount of the loan. Foreclosure gives the bank possession of the property, which they can (and do) sell. Any shortfall is still the borrower's responsibility. But, no, the bank can't sell the property for a dollar; they have to make a reasonable effort. Usually the sale is done through a sheriff's sale, that is, a more or less carefully supervised auction. Bankruptcy will wipe out the shortfall, and most other debts, but the downside is that most of the rest of your assets will also be sold to help pay off what you owe. Details of what you can keep vary from state to state. If you want to go this route, hire a lawyer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a9662b2e3c2f09acffd0498b6848b3c
|
Should I buy stocks of my current employer because of its high dividend yield?
|
[
{
"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": "d1ea51f3ed86b6d3207389c9309adb06",
"text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4860db445cce6425190155c66a485b3c",
"text": "Dividend yields are a product of the dollar amount paid to shareholders and the stock price. Dividends yields rise when a company is shunned by investors. It may be shunned because the earnings and/or dividend are at risk. Recent examples are SDRL and KMI. Most investors would love an 8% yield so I would wonder why the stock is being ignored or shunned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b69eea97ab6432c7cde802d6fd58942",
"text": "Dividend yield is not the only criteria for stock selection. Companies past performance, management, past deals, future expansion plans, and debt equity ratio should be considered. I would also like to suggest you that one should avoid making any investment in the companies that are directly affected by frequent changes in regulations released by government. All the above mentioned criteria are important for your decision as they make an impact on your investment and can highly affect the profits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6",
"text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1d75ffbcf884babd71bbaa5d04df609",
"text": "Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118",
"text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76ba232784fe8f7278b91b3212d6596d",
"text": "You didn't give enough information. What is your goal? What is your financial situation? A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting. I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago. I still own some of the stock. But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out). First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky. single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions. Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock. Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me. The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position. And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify. However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain? Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP. At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase. And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell.",
"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": "7819f1be16408a0aa802841cbf9596c1",
"text": "\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aac36f77ac72362f395a13c385dcc4f0",
"text": "Used in our daily activities goes out the house and acquire different things which our family wants. But since the economy isn't doing well these days, thinking about the High dividend stocks is important. One factor that must be taken into account could be the expense. If you're accustomed with buying what you see without even looking at the package price, you better customize the way you live your life. Perseverance is incredibly essential for you to be able to find the high dividend stocks. If possible, you need to seek a cheaper alternative on the pricey items you used to purchase. Be patient and save cash!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ddf4f306f99576150c1324d2593419",
"text": "If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4",
"text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee5ebb3166c476aae0783c775c317dc4",
"text": "Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4233f49ef04511ef2ae08cab80a2afc7",
"text": "There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b95dc966e98ff7d01f8d66c5876f50b",
"text": "You're talking about ESPP? For ESPP it makes sense to utilize the most the company allows, i.e.: in your case - 15% of the paycheck (if you can afford deferring that much, I assume you can). When the stocks are purchased, I would sell them immediately, not hold. This way you have ~10% premium as your income (pretty much guaranteed, unless the stock falls significantly on the very same day), and almost no exposure. This sums up to be a nice 1.5% yearly guaranteed bonus, on top of any other compensation. As to keeping the stocks, this depends on how much you believe in your company and expect the stocks to appreciate. Being employed and dependent on the company with your salary, I'd avoid investing in your company, as you're invested in it deeply as it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91b720167fd3efe4a248785f4df1a208",
"text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a75dc27af5484d1453a016c56df5290b",
"text": "\"If you're risking \"\"everything\"\" by buying stock, you shouldn't be buying stock. The employees are the ones who are really at risk. Should the business go belly up, the investors are out some investment money, they'll make more; the employees don't have an income source anymore. CAT may have no legal obligation to pay better than market-wages but if they want to keep their skilled labor from going to competitors, they might want to think about it. You can't build machines without workers. If you have a good product in an established market, you can always get more investors.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
33bc154976a275b545e9ac8c719dc1a6
|
How can I verify that a broker I found online is legitimate?
|
[
{
"docid": "8cce6cba937675492b25a92c5906c67f",
"text": "\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad6841767cff5094170f9bcd9d79f13c",
"text": "Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b51d6c9b55e00e4cbbda36cce60a248",
"text": "How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "24bb18e4837526c4fedf26ad190601c7",
"text": "Yup, if he/she is talking about a broker/dealer, but if he's talking to an RIA and is trying to find out who the custodian is then he won't have a statement yet. I don't think he has opened the account yet, but I'm not sure and could be totally misunderstanding the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceb0169d967e05a1d9e2cb1df64a3729",
"text": "It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9f1dbf5d857097e9aaf9017f61da980",
"text": "\"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards. Usually a question \"\"is this a scam or legitimate?\"\" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for \"\"scam or legitimate\"\", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1. The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws. They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them. They hook you with emotional investment. They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach. Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged. You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement. That may help with not having to figure this out on your own.\"",
"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": "32778590fecaad9af44b55729a0b9ea3",
"text": "I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1940348e30b01c2494e3e8aeb301fb11",
"text": "\"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e6f45dfd758ae481fa96948d281e815",
"text": "My best answer is to simply fish out that old email account. DumbCoder makes a good point - the company whose shares you own can probably figure out what brokerage firm is holding the shares, but it'd take a lot on their end. Honestly you're better off just hitting up random brokerage firms until you find the right one than going to the company and asking them where your shares are. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa692d545e770f2932b0abb8ecbdf8e0",
"text": "It is a Scam. Don't invest more money here. Their website is the proof. Investments may appreciate or depreciate and you may not receive more than you initially invested. The Peterson Group offers products that are traded on margin and entail a degree of risk. You may incur losses that exceed your initial investment. Please ensure you are aware of and fully understand the risks involved, and seek independent advice if necessary. Losses exceeding your initial investments does not sound a good investment even if it is not a scam. Not much contact information. Their contact page has only a form. No email. No phone number. No social media links. I would like to point some information from Dumbcoder's answer, Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). No names of the person's involved is a thing to notice. All the companies websites name their owner, CEO and the like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b20c6a5a5c7ade576e954c164b0a7253",
"text": "How easy is it to take out your money? To they offer any trading? Do you have to put more money up on your own to trade with? This seems pretty sketchy. I am currently working at a prop trading firm and although some sketchy firms require you to make a deposit, most legit ones do not. Not to mention their commissions are incredibly high (I interviewed at another sketchy firm but only charges a couple cents for commission). >most of the time you get rebates on them If it is not explicitly stated in the contract of how they decide your rebates than don't expect much. Most of the trading industry is build around taking advantage of people where people's word soon becomes meaningless unless it is in writing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5af089407e1ce10eb067713f60179f8b",
"text": "Here are a couple of articles that can help highlight the differences between a broker and an online investment service, which seems to be part of the question that you're asking. Pay attention to the references at the end of this link. http://finance.zacks.com/online-investing-vs-personal-broker-6720.html Investopedia also highlights some of the costs and benefits of each side, broke and online investment services. http://www.investopedia.com/university/broker/ To directly answer your question, a broker may do anything from using a website to making a phone call to submitting some other form of documentation. It is unlikely that he is talking directly to someone on the trading floor, as the volume traded there is enormous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e86c14250c667509dda4983abf9dded",
"text": "How do you find an ethical, honest practitioner of any business? One: Make a small transaction with them and see how they treat you. If they cheat you on something small, don't give them a chance with something big. Two: Ask family and friends for recommendations. Three: Get information from public sources, like web sites where people post reviews of businesses, consumer advocacy organizations, groups like the Better Business Bureau, etc. Personally I consider all these of questionable value as you're asking one stranger to advise you on the reliability of another stranger, but better than nothing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d50532f3efd11ae4bc96c5f3b72f9370",
"text": "\"Check the transactions costs, \"\"Desk fees\"\" and the whole structure, sit down with them and list everything. Then make a spreadsheet and calculate all the stuff they hit you with and figure out how good you have to be in trading to make money, (in terms of accuracy and p/l).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffbcdf2c785589d3691d7e7b1ae061e3",
"text": "Every brokerage is different, on all of their websites they have an actual list of fees. There are tons of different charges you may encounter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd5ff5c2df4893c413d262d9372f25b",
"text": "The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it. Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook. By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00 They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone. How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders. They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66e25bacedbdcc71660c7a8b122bb2e",
"text": "The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state). Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon* - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that). As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real: *it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
323b96951bc39f1390bd77a5719ca6a4
|
Wash sale rule + Mutual Funds/ETFs?
|
[
{
"docid": "bc9c200f6660dd9981ab887eb936190c",
"text": "I think the IRS doc you want is http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010601 I believe the answers are:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c913aa51881967e18ada87b98694a77",
"text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877",
"text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "767b52bd31b5d6dd53818af5fbc5e7bb",
"text": "What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9261b5cc8faec072e234aace913f48c3",
"text": "@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2849d184039e125ed07adb201bbeba4d",
"text": "What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"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": "c67b26d48377b74b8f3413e9368ceb5b",
"text": "Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c3ab042078e5972d070cb6885436956",
"text": "In theory this could lead to problematic investments being made, since no individual robot would know what the others are doing. For instance, one robot might decide to sell a certain stock or fund for tax loss harvesting purposes, but a different robot might buy the fund the next day for its own reasons. This would count as a wash sale and would affect your tax liability, but neither robot would be aware of it, so they probably wouldn't notify you of it correctly, so you might not pay the correct tax, which would clearly be bad. Similar problems could arise, for instance, if the different robots have different rebalancing strategies, leading to an overall allocation that isn't optimal. In general the idea of these services is that the robots do complicated things that can save you (or make you) money, and they hide this complexity from you. Without knowing exactly what they're doing, it's difficult to ensure that the aggregate action of multiple robots would still be beneficial; they could be canceling each other out, or worse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d",
"text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11d9f20c10870a59cfb7994066ecf4c1",
"text": "\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78655e8f9f3aebf43b475b08a8aa4e42",
"text": "First, I suggest that the route gives you the discount. You work the block with goldman and they say that if you work 20 blocks with them you get 50bps back, regardless of the issue. Also, as a hedge fund you have a very different model than an ETF or MF. That said, how exactly would that this be disclosed to the investor? Is there a standard in place for that?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afde488a531ae9dc216700acfc01f10a",
"text": "I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9f1667c1c5842672022e480c86b017a",
"text": "Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd30774c11683c76e41a6c69207b2777",
"text": "I was going to comment on the commission-free ETF answer, which I agree with, but I don't have enough reputation. TD Ameritrade has a list of commission-free ETFs and has no minimum deposit required to open an account. Another idea is to keep gifts in cash until a certain threshold is reached. For instance, $100 for birthday, $100 for Christmas, $100 for next birthday, $100 for next Christmas, now execute the trade. Sharebuilder has $4 scheduled trades, so you'd be at about 1% overhead for that. If other people give money, you'll reach the threshold faster of course. For what it's worth, I do something similar for my 2 nieces. I combined their account and prepay Christmas plus birthday, so I do 1 trade a year. I have my account at Sharebuilder because my idea predated the commission-free ETFs that are now pretty popular. I should really transfer the account... hm.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e38db6affb2b0ac553df2826ec1a5134
|
Ownership in company and rounds of investment
|
[
{
"docid": "a14bffe08685cbcd145cdf1e51818c1e",
"text": "Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership. More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.",
"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": "dcfb68ac04560cc5455ac9725a74c2d2",
"text": "You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing. Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e77db7e9fa33441623e940265591ae1",
"text": "\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08b33371fc902a3bf1a95d3c70dc2276",
"text": "If someone invest certain amount on my company and after a year I am able to return the exact capital with the profit, what will I do to that investor? Did the investor receive shares in the company for the money that was invested in the company? This is the big question here as if so then there isn't the need to return the money but rather grow the business so that the investor's shares are worth more. Will that person still invest in my company? You may need to consider what you mean by invest as generally there are a couple of ways to finance a business: Equity - Ownership of the company is sold to raise money to run the company. Debt - The company is lent money that is to be repaid over time. Investing is usually the first case not the second. What if I have enough profit to continue my business, do I still need that investor? You wouldn't need the investor. However, you may want that investor as they could provide more funds, connections or other benefits to the company that may be worth considering here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2c022b1449e01b86edb8c305f5f463c",
"text": "\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2a856f472bd80bab9f4e6e37f0c37e6",
"text": "From your question, it seems your problem is that you have a company that wants to make a deal, but does not currently have enough money to go through with it. Therefore it needs to raise capital. Assuming that you cannot get a loan from a bank and you do not want to seek funding from other sources, the two owners must provide the funds themselves somehow. Option A: The easiest and fairest way to do this is for the two shareholders to provide 75%, and 25% of the funding as a loan to the company. They will provide this loan knowing it may not be paid back if the company goes under. Note that it would not be fair for one of the shareholders to provide more, as that shareholder would be taking all the risk, while the other still reaps the rewards (although you could add a large interest rate to account for this). Option B: But say one of the shareholders cannot provide additional funds. In that case, the company should issue new shares, and each shareholder can purchase however many of the new shares he/she wants (each shareholder is entitled to purchase at least 75% or 25% respectively, but does not have to). The result of this may be that company ownership percentages have changed after the capital raising. This is more complex as it require valuing the company accurately to be fair, and probably requires reporting to a government (depending on the jurisdiction).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cef8d43a4f2317fde1fe5a67522399e",
"text": "A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e881f1eca19a7e25e124723441ae8f3e",
"text": "Another way to decide would be to do a fair valuation of the company agreeable to both the partners. Lets assume when you started the company it was worth $10,000 and to acquire 75%, you must have put $7,500 worth of money and effort. Similarly, the other partner must have put $2,500 worth of time and money. Now say after 2 years, you both agree that company is worth $50,000. And say now the company needs $10,000 worth of investment. Whoever invests that money should get 20% (10k/50k) of the company. Or each $1,000 will buy 2% in the company. Post this investment the equity division would be First investor (you) 75% of 80% = 60 % Second investor (your partner) 25% of 80% = 20% Third (new) investor = 20% Now, if you alone decide to put all the money you stake will be 60 + 20 = 80% and your partner will be reduced to 20%. If you guys want to maintain equity as it was (75-25), you need to put money in the same ratio ($7500 and $2500). If you do that- First investor 60% + 15% (for $7,500) = 75% Second investor 20% + 5% (for $2,500) = 25%. Please know for IP-centric company valuation is very subjective. But, do make an effort to do the valuation at every stage of the company so that you can put a number in terms of equity for each investment.",
"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": "ebf7f2ffdd88a794594aa313b48eb2d1",
"text": "yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b82fb1b960b241080e16afd01ce6551",
"text": "\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ab18a2a7ca03e479b2e9b8ed29d002",
"text": "You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c671fbf2d129267bb6316c15735d1b2b",
"text": "\"We're not \"\"helping\"\" the company in a comparable sense to donating money to a non-profit. As you wrote, investing in a company deals with ownership and in a sense, becoming a part owner of a company, even if it is a minor ownership, indicates that we sense it has some sort of value, whether that's ethical, financial or tangible value. As investors, we should take responsibility and ensure that our voices are heard when voting occurs (sadly, not too common). EDIT: @thepassiveinvestor makes an excellent point that this paragraph only applies to IPOs: Keep in mind, when we purchase stock in a company, that money is used for business purposes. It also signals value to the market as well, if enough money or enough investors buy the stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2bfbfbabfc07ef43711447587646f45",
"text": "A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c242c3c619edd67a2cb3f91a7f5277db",
"text": "However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
36c4909f47a468bc009c2d425dc2ecbc
|
Stocks and Bankruptcy
|
[
{
"docid": "026253eb0466607bb63f7801dcfa4d32",
"text": "As Mhoran said, the risks of buying a bankrupt company are huge, and even successful bankruptcy turnarounds don't involve keeping the same stock. For instance, the GM bankruptcy was resolved by the company more or less selling all its valuable assets (brands, factories, inventory) to a new version of itself, using that money to pay off what liabilities it could, and then dissolving. The new company then issued new stock, and you had to buy the new stock to see it rise; the old stock became worthless. AA could have gone the same way; Delta could have bought it out of bankruptcy and consumed it outright, with any remaining shareholders being paid off at market value. That's probably the best the market was hoping for. Instead, the deal is a much more equal merger; AMR brings a very large airport network and aircraft fleet to the table, and Delta brings its cash, an also-considerable fleet and network, and a management team that's kept that airline solvent. The stockholders, therefore, expect to be paid off at a much higher per-share price, either in a new combined stock, in Delta stock, or in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "880dc263d442e52e728d24edec9faac6",
"text": "\"When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: \"\"Q\"\" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter \"\"Q\"\" is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on securities, please read our online publication, Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5a9627f82260bb39df76ebc5d187e383",
"text": "according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6717167ff7503e5d6514ba61ba1a135a",
"text": "Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy. As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "489e404056f757fa10948fe9ba49e6e7",
"text": "I know folks who have had two personal (chap. 7 both times) bankruptcies in the U.S., including one after the bankruptcy reforms of a few years ago. I did have the 10-year thing wrong, though. It's once every eight years for a chap. 7 liquidation, and once every six years for Chap. 13 restructuring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3fcc98a23ecf60d847d502cb52a0209",
"text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50fbda863f078d02e1be7577f198d04",
"text": "http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7acff7526aae2b84408778f98027f005",
"text": "1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1 million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings. In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing. In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices. I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies. A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346",
"text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "101539eaf2a1c7edd0566ddfeec41f5f",
"text": "As an ordinary shareholder, yes you are protected from recourse by the debtors. The maximum amount you can lose is the amount you spent on the shares. The rules might change if you are an officer of the company and fraud is alleged, but ordinary stockholders are quite well protected. Why are you worried about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54a054381c61a8a014d7aec236cfb8c2",
"text": "The biggest issue with personal bankruptcy is the guilt. We generally are brought up to believe that we should be responsible for our debts. Bankruptcy is a direct contradiction to that concept. Once a debtor realizes that corporations don't necessarily view bankruptcy as failure, but merely a financial tool, that makes it a lot easier to let go of the guilt. Once that happens, all a debtor needs to get used to is the idea that s/he'll be dealing with a cash economy for a while. Which isn't a particularly bad thing at all. Inconvenient at times, but that's about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3c3f7f714d69f7465454a8c207943a1",
"text": "I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative. if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value. So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32b1e6c084e4e271c2554fefe8f4e5d9",
"text": "I upvoted you as I think your story is important to tell. However, commodities and futures accounts have never been protected under SIPC. The use of your money to pay debts sounds illegal or perhaps it was legal under a document you signed when you opened your account. Bankruptcy was not a way to screw you over. The bigger point is that bankruptcy is a way to restructure debts and is beneficial in the long run to the benefits of society. While we often look at people or corporations who have to file bankruptcy as being irresponsible (and what I am about to say may reflect negatively on you, for that I apologize) the people or corporations who lent to a bankrupt entity should be scorned just as much. Right now, the EU is going through a period where we are hoping bankruptcy is off the table. Increasingly though, the only way to do that is to try and paper over debts that will never be repaid for a long enough time period for growth to resume. But the question remains, what if growth never comes back. This is why restructuring and bankruptcy is the only option for Greece and likely Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland.",
"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": "525c3509e71bd4c3639b8190edb05ab6",
"text": "I don't know what you're talking about. If anything bankruptcy has become more creditor friendly over the years, which is only logical because business debtors don't really lobby for friendlier bankruptcy rules when they're not planning on being bankrupt. The only difference is that debt is more readily available and a bigger part of doing business today, so you'll naturally see more reorganizations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8",
"text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ce93198bcdc353d6139a5990121e9b4e
|
Value of a call option spread
|
[
{
"docid": "5f2843f0727becf25573f503842927fc",
"text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd145cb1b9257d7f0fc1084a1d650913",
"text": "I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him. That's why you have to subtract 600-100. At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3738d4730492b2c16c3e0de5fa4b797b",
"text": "You have to look at the real price of the share to calculate the value of the spread. 42$ 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": "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": "9f9c661e50e60782e8737963f1e16b86",
"text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "582717eb89dc9346c0ff6f09069b1c98",
"text": "\"It depends on the volatility of the underlying stock. But for \"\"normal\"\" levels of volatility, the real value of that option is probably $3.50! Rough estimates of the value of the option depending on volatility levels: Bottom line: unless this is a super volatile stock, it is trading at $3.50 for a reason. More generally: it is extremely rare to find obvious arbitrage opportunities in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba855945cfa8e9af71a8036def16481",
"text": "\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf944a4d58bf8b85e060ca338784b6b",
"text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea1540671e85c547c40d496a04afd912",
"text": "\"The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price. The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a \"\"naked put write\"\" position, having sold a put option. The strike price of the put is marked as \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold. This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry. If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be \"\"in the money\"\". Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry. This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the \"\"A\"\" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis. The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to \"\"A\"\" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero. In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of \"\"B\"\" and purchase a put option with a strike price \"\"A\"\", where A is less than B. Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis. This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price. Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price \"\"A\"\" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of \"\"A\"\" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of \"\"A\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01bc163dafeb74461141b9a95710d206",
"text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac4977a4961a36d663225f022a72b039",
"text": "Not to be a jerk, since I'm learning about options myself, but I think you have a few things wrong about your tesla put postion. First, assuming it was itm or atm within a week of strike it would maybe be worth $12-15, I glanced at the 11/10 put strikes ~325 trades for $12.65 https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/TSLA/options?expiration=2017-11-10 The closer it gets to expiry theta decay reduces put value significantly, the 325's that expire tomorrow are only worth $2.60. Expecting TSLA to drop from 325 to 50 a share by Jan has a .006% chance of occuring according to the current delta. It's a lottery ticket at best. _____ Lastly the $50 price is the expected share price at the date of expiry. The price you pay is 57c for the options. So in order to get to your 494k number TSLA would need to decline $50 dollars to a price of 275 a share. You wouldn't want to buy 50 dollar puts, just the 275 puts, provided it declines very quickly. EDIT: I was looking at the recent expiration to get an idea of atm or itm prices, since it's not like you would hold to expiration. Also the Jan has a 0.6% chance of hitting 50, not .006%. That said what I've noticed when things start to slide is that puts have a weird way of pricing themselves. For example when something gradually goes up all of the calls go up down the chain through time frames, but puts do not in the same fashion. Further out lower priced puts won't move nearly as much unless the company is basically headed for bankruptcy.",
"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": "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": "285a03c9ad4b1e6cab12e0675e95ec57",
"text": "If we were to observe some call price (e.g., 15), and then derived implied volatilities from the BS formula depending on different strike prices but fixed maturity (i.e, maturity = 1, and strike goes from 80 to 140??), would we then see a smile? Yes. Market prices for various strikes and a given maturity often have higher implied volatilities from the Black-Scholes model away from at-the-money. It is not accounted for in the Black-Scholes model in the fact that volatility is not a function of strike, so volatility is assumed to be constant across strikes, but the market does not price options that way. I don't know that a quantitative theory has ever been proven; I've always just assumed that people are willing to pay slightly more for options deep in or out of the money based on their strategy, but I have no evidence to base that theory on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "325b30fb598f679f0d3dc954b0dbdfdf",
"text": "I have an example of a trade I made some time ago. By entering the position as a covered call, I was out of pocket $5.10, and if the stock traded flat, i.e. closed at the same $7.10 16 months hence, I was up 39% or nearly 30%/yr. As compared to the stock holder, if the stock fell 28%, I'd still break even, vs his loss of 28%. Last, if the stock shot up, I'd get 7.50/5.10 or a 47% return, vs the shareholder who would need a price of $10.44 to reflect that return. Of course, a huge jump in the shares, say to $15, would benefit the option buyer, and I would have left money on the table. But this didn't happen. The stock was at $8 at expiration, and I got my 47% return. The option buyer got 50 cents for his $2 bet. Note, the $2 option price reflected a very high implied volatility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d834e964f6c5946049a37c89b31d7f",
"text": "\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43851a63b4ac85e017a720b23423841a",
"text": "A long call options spread. In this case, a bet that the USO ETF would recover to $35. You can see, I got in when USO was $28, and it's continued to drop, but it has till Jan '17 to recover. The spread is set up to give leverage, when I entered the trade, a 50% recovery would result in a 200% gain, or 3X my bet. An option spread can be bought using any two strikes, and with different payouts depending on how far out of the money the strikes are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc099b1abdf9dc876d19f6f58c312c29",
"text": "\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b30a176040eceef19e99b7ba3a1a7a85
|
What is insider trading exactly?
|
[
{
"docid": "720fe00fe0720bf7e74746789d52f8b7",
"text": "Insider trading is any trading done on material non-public information relating to an instrument. If my sister, who works for a drugs testing company, tells me that stage 3 trials of a drug look like they will fail and I trade on that information (probably by shorting a company's stock) that is insider trading. If an employee of that firm trades on that same stock knowing that the trials are likely to fail that is too. If an employee of that company trades on the stock without knowing that information that is NOT insider trading. If I know from an insider I met at the pub that a large orange producer has seen a fall in production due to a blight and I trade on oranges futures, even though I am not directly trading in the stock it is still insider trading. I mentioned that the information must be material, that means that it must have the potential to move the market; if I know that a firm is going to increase profits by 10% this year it is not material if analyst expectations are for a similar rise. You are right that small scale insider trading, such as by employees and their families, is relatively unregulated and unchecked but directors and C-level employees of a firm are required to publish all and any dealings that they have in the stock and several have been caught and penalized for insider trading. edit: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml details some cases, many involving director and C-level employees, that the SEC has prosecuted recently. Incidentally I work in financial fraud monitoring and we use an analytic based on previous days' trades and today's news (i.e. when the information becomes public) to identify traders who might either be indulging in or receiving orders to trade on insider information. Essentially this works by looking for large changes in position against an instrument that later has material information releases relevant to it. One final thing to think about: given that being caught will generally cause perpetrators to go to prison and be banned from director level jobs and/or trading for life as well as a large, life-changing fine and a massive loss of reputation not many people with insider information want to risk trading on it, myself included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49116813bdaca2a97e43c13f41359d5c",
"text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2c7eb9d5813947c272fc9a888ffca5f7",
"text": "Using inside sensitive information about corporate and using the same to deal in securities, before the exchanges are made aware of the information. Its mostly used in derivatives to get maximum returns on investmens, but Its illegal in all the exchanges",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b6467e804b2819ebdf69bc967a7c1f66",
"text": "At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90bc51f61b066d9836b9256a4e20c78",
"text": "I do not believe that this was a case of insider trading. As an example, one of the executives sold only 4% of his total. Now consider that between the 3 of them, the amount sold was only $1.8M. These amounts are minuscule and are in no way indicative of any misconduct. My opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a",
"text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "514d693ee366b070c3497f8f3723436c",
"text": "* In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were pinstriped brokers who took orders over the phone from people who wanted to buy and sell. They had a huge competitive advantage over the rest of the market due to the lack of transparency in the market's order book. Therefore you got screwed every time you wanted to trade, ie the markets were less efficient because transaction cost was high. Transaction cost is = bid-ask spread + how much you get screwed by the market insiders. * In the 90's and early 00's there were automated trading systems that allowed people to conduct trades directly with computers, aka Algorithmic Trading. The markets were more efficient, because spreads became tighter as more people were able to enter the market on this platform (e.g. [Lightspeed](http://lightspeed.com)). The ability for market insiders to screw the general market was lessened because the exclusive access to the market's order book was eroded. Of course some Algorithmic Trading operations had a huge competitive advantage because they had great systems and great people. However it wasn't talked about because those who new about it were making a killing and keeping their mouths shut. * Then in the mid to late 00's there was co-located algorithmic trading on very fast systems, aka HFT, a natural evolution of Algorithmic Trading. Now market insiders (= people with enough resources to field co-located machines and the the engineer/traders to manage them) expanded their competitive advantage by discovering the market's order book (as they are able to see orders in a fraction of a second and then act on those orders). However to retract this natural efficiency in the markets you would need to create some kind of set of rules to even out the playing field. How can that be done? ** Option 1) Transaction tax would just make the markets less efficient by increasing the cost of buying and selling. A generally bad thing because it discourages traders (to put money into stocks), which is of course how the capital markets are supported. ** Option 2) Create rules to ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time and then permit anyone to use whatever technology they want to act on that information, so that the most efficient trading operations win. ** Option 3) Create some artificial environment where no-one is allowed to have an advantage: ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time, ensure everyone has the same technology, and ensure that the people who manage the systems have the exact same experience and intelligence etc... Of course #2 is how it works, and it is the meritocratic basis which underpins Capitalism. I don't see why people have a problem with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6509a8ab9ef0eed5eaff9b3b0df4e1f3",
"text": "Calling insider trading theft is a pretty big stretch. I think it should remain illegal as it's not great for markets and undermines investor faith, if the people that bought stock from this guy wanted the stock they would have gotten it anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "509193a4342651b45574262bf7a52288",
"text": "Material Information means that any information that can reasonable affect the share price of the company [upward or downward] as looked by the investors. The idea is to provide a level playing field to all investors. Hence it forces people having material information not to trade when they have this information that is not yet disclosed. Yes it happens all the time and laws are quite stringent. There is monitoring of share activity by regulators ... hence most of the times the companies come out with their own guidelines and top & senior management is prohibited from trading in their own company’s shares for pretty much round the year except few windows the company decides is safe. Now it may not be possible to monitor every small material info, but any large spike of stocks after certain announcements is investigated by regulators to verify any undue gains. For ex a person who never trades suddenly buys large qty of shares and it goes up and he sells again ... etc",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2f46271309d4bffce070c378740742b",
"text": "In principle I agree with you. However the allegation is that the people managing the IPO withheld crucial information and informed insiders against investing. Maybe the allegations are false, but it should still be looked into. If the IPO shared crucial details with insider traders while keeping it from the public at large that would affect the investor's risk-assessment of a stock, that's insider trading and should be punished accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fc569ad4936be591a894f7b97eaef94",
"text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f2fded90eccd6613f143996604f151d",
"text": "\"Yes I know that. Then please tell me how this article relates to business. I doubt anyone even clicked at it, it's a link to \"\"stock picks\"\" subreddit which then links to \"\"crypto\"\" trading blog. This is definitely nto business related post even if everyone is downvoting me to hell. Sidenote: This subreddit is full of spam and almost nothing relevant to actual business can be found so this is a good moment to unsubscribe which I have just done.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51856e56abf27456c543dd71c32bdf27",
"text": "The amount of money spent on compliance to prevent insider trading alone probably dwarfs the cost it may impose on the markets. But separately from that, the information that insider has is obviously going to get out, right? If it were spread through word of mouth heterogeneously and not released to all market participants at once, you eliminate or greatly diminish the value of ultra high frequency trading, which has become a useless arms race that probably doesn't add much value to society. In the world of information, there's no clear marking that says *public* and *non-public*, but rather many shades between. I just don't think it's really worth pursuing except in the case of actual company insiders. We should be focusing our limited energy elsewhere, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf32eb62bfc03a51f570c01b3963b7d",
"text": "\"I don't have any sympathy for Wall Street insiders, and am greatly in favor of giving law breakers real sentences. But look, any facebook buyer that feels \"\"cheated\"\" here needs to take a good long look in the mirror. It's not illegal to sell something at a preposterous, outrageously high price. You can claim that you were \"\"mislead\"\" by the seller, but by doing that, you abdicate your personal responsibility to think through your own decisions carefully, and come to your own understanding of what they're worth. If the primary basis for buying facebook stock was that *Mark Zuckerberg* said $38 was a good buy, and you couldn't take a few minutes out to decide if that made sense for yourself, for your own sake you should really get out of the stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a4e4abcd575badb34535fc1c59aed9d",
"text": "\"Once upon a time I ran my own micro hedge fund for a very short time. I can't recall the term commonly used in the industry for such info, but a few individuals, including the prime brokerage firm's founder, offered information of questionable character. I refused to trade on any of it, not only because of the borderline illegality, but also because I didn't trust any of it... seemed to be more rumor mill type nonsense than anything else. Moreover, if they already have that info, then it's already up/down... so it then goes the reverse direction as they take profits. As is commonly said even in normal investor circles: \"\"buy the rumor, sell the news.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39feb09ec1c2b5cacbad2ac4de0178ef",
"text": "In the UK if you come into the possession of the information in a way that isn't available to the general public that's insider trading. It even states this in section 7, and uses the example of if you observe something like a burning factory as a member of the public, that's not insider information as anyone could have seen it. If you attended a meeting or somehow got hold of private information not yet made public, then it would be considered insider information. Its possible the OP got this information through public observation but considering the nature of the information it's highly unlikely",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4603a9d130e55a92bbe6c6147cc416",
"text": "More shares mean less volatility because it takes a larger number of trades, a larger number of shares per trade, or a combination of both to raise or lower the stock price. Institutional investors (mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, other investment firms, etc) are the sorts of organizations with the large amounts of money needed to move a stock price one way or the other. But the more floating shares there are in a company, the harder it is for one or two firms to move a stock price. A company with fewer floating shares wouldn't require as many trades (or as many shares per trade) to see wider swings in price. When it comes to stock price, insider trading isn't the same as manipulation. In the (surprisingly few) cases of insider trading that are prosecuted, it tends to be an individual (or small group) with early access to information that the broader market doesn't have being able to buy or sell ahead of the broader market. Their individual sales are seldom if ever enough to noticeably move a stock price. They're locking in profit or limiting a loss. Manipulation might (but doesn't always) precede insider trading, if misinformation (or truth) is released for the purpose of creating a situation that can be profited from via a trade or trades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b990865408156bb2715fe8bcd64b1ad3",
"text": "A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56d7969a95eae04a20ba7219c84333ce
|
Can a put option and call option be exercised for the same stock with different strike prices?
|
[
{
"docid": "ced0eec88f0ff8ca5c9fb5e786ee9731",
"text": "\"What you did is called a \"\"strangle.\"\" It's rather unlikely that both will be exercised on the same day. But yes, it can happen. That is if the market is very volatile on a given day, so that the stock hits 13 in the morning, the put gets exercised, and then hits 15 later in the day, so the call gets exercised. Or vice versa. More to the point, the prices are close enough that one might be hit on one day, and the other on a DIFFERENT day. In either case, if one side gets hit, you need to reevaluate your position in the other. But basically, any open position you have can be hit at any time. The only way to avoid this risk is not to have positions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a46d1b49e84a23dc41d9a8c35eb44328",
"text": "You could have both options exercised (and assigned to you) on the same day, but I don't think you could lose money on both on the same day. The reason is that while exercises are immediate, assignments are processed after the markets close at the end of each day. See http://www.888options.com/help/faq/assignment.jsp for details. So you would get both assignments at the same time, that night. The net effect should be that you don't own any stock (someone would put you the stock, then it'd be called away) and you don't have the options anymore. You should have incoming cash of $1500 selling the stock to the call exerciser and outgoing cash of $1300 buying from the put exerciser, right? So you would have no more options but $200 more cash in your account in the morning. You bought at 13 and sold at 15. This options position is an agreement to buy at 13 and sell at 15 at someone else's option. The way you lose money is if one of the options isn't exercised while the other is, i.e. if the stock is below 13 so nobody is going to opt to buy from you at 15, but they'll sell to you at 13; or above 15 so nobody is going to opt to sell to you at 13, but they'll buy from you at 15. You make money if neither is exercised (you keep the premium you sold for) or both are exercised (you keep the gap between the two, plus the premium). Having both exercised is surely rare, since early exercise is rare to begin with, and tends to happen when options are deep in the money; so you'd expect both to be exercised if both are deep in the money at some point. Having both be exercised on the same day ... can't be common, but it's maybe most likely just before expiration with minimal time value, if the stock moves around quickly so both options are in the money at some point during the day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4a80711ceb6fd70f6930a17b1ec00e4a",
"text": "In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a82ca866a082205ecebfd675b8480e",
"text": "I cannot believe noone mentioned this so far: Every decision you make is independent from previous decisions (that is, if you only care about your expected gain). This means that your decision whether to buy the option should be the same whether you bought the same option before or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf944a4d58bf8b85e060ca338784b6b",
"text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.",
"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": "72175f90adc2e004c434fd308c1d2327",
"text": "That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b40cfde36c298fa85ed57128325b279",
"text": "Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing. But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d5acf9a4e7a1b948c7f879ea9530e8",
"text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6e40c1fea4268cb12f780d66f98e66",
"text": "Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0653f5ab32bb47bfcd897c56ae279247",
"text": "\"The simplest thing to do here is to speak to your employer about what is allowed. This should be spelt out in your company's \"\"Stock Options Plan\"\" documentation. In particular, this document will include details of the vesting schedule. For example, the schedule may only allow you to exercise 25% in the first year, 25% in the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Technically I can see no reason to prevent you from the mix-and-match approach you are suggesting. However, this may not be the case according to the schedule specification.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ce1b5e977862952bf765e2bcea55ad",
"text": "\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda8ddc560acfd40fd1c1bb8cb99f4f5",
"text": "\"First, welcome to Money.SE. The selected page is awful. I don't know the value in listing different expirations at the same strike. Usually, all the strikes are grouped by month, so I'd be looking at Jan '15 across all strikes. \"\"In the money\"\" means the price of a stock is trading above the strike price, if a call, or below it, if a put. On 10/20 of some year, Intel was trading at $23.34. The January $25 call strike was just $0.70, and April's was $1.82. These were out of the money. The $25 puts were \"\"in the money\"\" by $1.66 so you could have paid $1.90 for the Jan $25 put, with $.24 of time premium. By November, the price rose and the put fell, to $.85, all time premium. As with stocks, the key thing is to only buy calls of stock that are going to go up. If a stock will fall, buy puts. Curious, what was the class discussion just before the teacher gave you this image?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e1c1d248918ff767562b5549d2a3218",
"text": "\"According to Yahoo, AAPL was trading at $113.26 at 1:10 PM on 11/13/15, which is the approximate time of your option quote. You provided a quote for AAPL at 4:15, and the stock happened to keep going down most of the that afternoon. To make a sensible comparison, you need to take contemporary prices on both the stock and the option. The quote on the option also shows the \"\"price\"\" being outside of the bid-ask range, which suggests that the option was trading thinly and that the last price occurred sometime earlier in the day. If you use a price in the bid-ask range ($21.90-$22.30) and use the price of AAPL at the time of the put quote, you'll come up with a price that's much closer to your expectation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa31bcf6bbf9f52810afac727898f14b",
"text": "\"I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly \"\"win\"\" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial. A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already.\"",
"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": "524afee62b9dc9c8606c83b85562b9b0",
"text": "Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2172ebbc39c8c3a1fb5bceb4c2ffaeec
|
What is Fibonacci values?
|
[
{
"docid": "cd80bd4bbb567bb4dd7ffaf39b6d6e0b",
"text": "Usually when a stock is up-trending or down-trending the price does not go up or down in a straight line. In an uptrend the price may go up over a couple of days then it could go down the next day or two, but the general direction would be up over the medium term. The opposite for a downtrend. So if the stock has been generally going up over the last few weeks, it may take a breather for a week or two before prices continue up again. This breather is called a retracement in the uptrend. The Fibonacci levels are possible amounts by which the price might retract before it continues on its way up again. By the way 50% is not actually a Fibonacci Retracement level but it is a common retracement level which is usually used in combination with the Fibonacci Retracement levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa734e78378dc1154719978aecfdb195",
"text": "This is how I've understood this concept. Fibonacci nos/levels/ratios/%s is based on concept of sequential increment. You may find lot of info about Fibonacci on net. In stock market this concept is used to predict psychological level. While a trend is form, usually price tend to accumulate/consolidate at these level. How the percentage/ ratio make impact is - check any long trend...Now draw a fibbo retracement from immediate previous high and connect it's low. You will see new levels of intermediate trend. In broader term you will find after reversal a leg (trend) is formed, then body and then head which is smaller; then price reverses. The first leg that forms if it refuses to break 23.6% or 38.2% then the previous trend may continue. 50% is normal; usually this level is indecision phase. Even 61.8% is seen as indecision but it is crucial level as it is breakout level towards 100%. Now if the stock retraces 100% then it is sign a new big trend is forming. Now for day trader 23.6%,38.2% and 50% level are very crucial from trading purpose. This concept is so realistic that every level is considered and respected. Suppose if a candle or bar starts at 23.6% level and crosses 38.2% and directly hits 50%. Then the next bar or candle will revert and first hit 38.2% and then continue with the trend. It means price comes back, forms it area at this level and then continue whichever direction the force directs it. You never trade fibo alone, you need help of oscillators or other tools to confirm it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7f3e8cac96486db24344d65596d6fff2",
"text": "Yahoo Finance has this now, the ticker is CL=F.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d4848795afda7c738e5708fbb8937ab",
"text": "What are Pivot Points? Pivot Points indicate price levels that are of significance in technical analysis of securities. Pivot Points are used to provide clarity for a trader as they are a predictive indicator of where a security might go. There are at least 6 different types of Pivot Points (Woodie Pivot Point, Fibonacci Pivot, Demark etc..) and they are different based on their formulas but generally serve the same concept. I will be answering your question using the Camarilla Pivot Point formula. Camarilla Pivot Point Formula Generally any Pivot Point formula uses a combination of the Open, High, Low and Close of the previous timeframe. Since you are technically a swing trader indicated by say between a couple of days to a couple of weeks, as I don't want to do day trading you should use a weekly 5 to 30 minute chart but you can also use a daily chart as well. So for example if you use a daily chart, you would use the Open, High, Low and Close of the previous day. Example of fictitious stock: MOSEX (Money Stack Exchange) 01/14/16: Open: 10.25, High: 12.55, Low: 9.65, Close: 11.50 On 01/15/16: R4 Level: 13.10, R3 Level: 12.30, R2 Level: 12.03, R1 Level: 11.77, Pivot Point: 11.23, S1 Level: 11.23, S2 Level: 10.97, S3 Level: 10.70, S4 Level: 9.91 R = Resistance, S = Support How to identify these Pivot Points? Most charting software already have built in overlays that will identify the pivot points for you but you can always find and draw them yourself with an annotation tool. Since we are using the Camarilla Pivot Point formula, the important Pivot Point levels are the R4 which is considered as the Breakout Pivot, the S4 which is considered as the Breakdown Pivot. R3 and S3 are Reversal Pivot Points. Once identify the Pivot Points how should you proceed in a trade? This is the million dollar question and without spoon feeding you requires you to come up with your own strategy. To distinguish yourself from being a novice and pro trader is to have a strategy in a trade. Now I don't really have the time to look for actual charts to provide examples with but generally this is what you should look for to proceed in a trade: Potential Buy/Short Signals: Potential Sell Signals: If a stock moves above the R3 Level but then crosses below it, this would be a sell signal. This is confirmed when their is a lower lower then the candle that first crosses below it. Sell a stock when S4 Level is confirmed. See above for the confirmation. Other Useful Tips: Use the Pivot Point as your support or resistance. The Pivot Point levels can be used for your stop loss. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, the S4 should be used as a stop loss. Conversely, the Pivot Point levels can also be used for your target prices. For example, with an S3 reversal buy signal, you should take some profits at R3 level. You should also use a combination of other indicators to give you more information to confirm if a signal is correct. Examples of a good combination is the RSI, MACD and Moving Averages. Read that book in my comment above!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee38726681a5935fb3c798007c9782f8",
"text": "In computing, you'd generally return naa%, for 'not a number'. Could you not put '-%' to show there is no value at this point? Surely the people seeing this aren't idiots and understand the charge on 0 is 0?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "866805d80dc681862ebed49508181e9c",
"text": "\"Ok this is random but now I am super curious -- how can one argue plastic's inability to store value comes artificially/by opinion? As a man-made good, are there not any finite restrictions on its creation? It reminds me of the Golgafringians of Douglas Adams' *Life, the Universe, and Everything* when they attempted to make leaves a currency. Or do you argue something along the lines that plastic's value is artificial in the same manner as the dollar -- whether it is paper or plastic it can represent a promised/existing product despite its potentially infinite nature? And yeah, I know \"\"potentially infinite\"\" is a TERRIBLE term given the finite nature of anything on earth required to make plastic...but I couldn't come up with a better term though I am sure one exists\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e99375bd7e6b4b7a54da72ddd1843a2",
"text": "WilliamKF explained it pretty well, but I want to put it in a more simplistic form:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c3b1310456736e53a35ded27012e0f",
"text": "\">If we adopt an all-together conservative approach and control FDP at \\gamma γ= 1% (i.e., we accept one per cent of lucky discovery among all discoveries on average or in our sample), we reject all the two million strategies. I'm impressed that they would release this, as people are often dissuaded from releasing a negative result (\"\"we tested whether X was causing the decline in bee populations, we found it probably wasn't.\"\"). Very important to know though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4549ecee88d0ebf51be242700a3fa2",
"text": "Am I missing something or is the author? EUP5 USP5 SUP5 PUS5 EDIT: Its not just currency pairs either, 5DEL; EU5L; 5UKL; EU5S; 5DES. Unless I misunderstood something, the authors worst nightmare has already arrived in Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a75c5ba3947303b0d87d0aa43ae4ec1",
"text": "just start on quantopian. you wont know what you are doing. take someones algorithm, break it. figure out why its broken, fix it. figure out why it works. brainstorm ideas. code them. bugfix. realize you dont know enough. google search. . . profit thats what I did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d90f991f80e65e67aa8585a99deacf",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/working_papers/2017/pdf/wp17-12.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > 7 3 Local Dynamics The local dynamics of the simple search and matching model have been studied by Krause and Lubik. > In the previous literature, for example Mendes and Mendes and Bhattacharya and Bunzel, the backward dynamics are defined via the map g by rearranging to isolate &theta;t : \u0010 \u00111/&xi; &theta;t = a&theta;t+1 c&theta;t+1 + d = g. 11 Under risk aversion, the dynamics depend on the time path of output yt. > 4.2 Stability Properties We now study the dynamics of the backward map zt = f. We first establish the properties of the function f. We then study the stability properties of the steady state, where we distinguish between two broad areas of dynamics in the backward map, namely stable and unstable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788alk/fed_global_dynamics_in_a_search_and_matching/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233564 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*: **dynamic**^#1 **model**^#2 **0.1**^#3 **1**^#4 **map**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26cadc4ff83767a500d7349bb9208342",
"text": "\"Inherent or intrinsic value. (Aside from the term's use with regards to options markets) Every time I tell someone I've invested in Bitcoin they tell me that it is silly because there is no inherent or intrinsic value in Bitcoin. But what is the intrinsic value of paper with a federal seal on it? What is the intrinsic value of a component that could be, but doesn't have to be used in computer parts (gold)? My favorite question of all to show the silliness of \"\"intrinsic value\"\" is to ask what is the intrinsic value of water? To someone parched and dying of thirst in a desert I'm quite certain that, faced with death, they'd be willing to part with an appendage for the water, if anything to simply survive. On the other hand, what is the value of water to someone drowning? I would think it actually has a quite negative value and they'd be more than happy to see the water gone, even going so far as to part with an appendage. To make an argument that water has an intrinsic value is to say that the word \"\"value\"\" isn't subjective when it very clearly is, in both cases where water is needed and not wanted, one would feasibly be willing to pay a very extreme cost (the removal of an appendage) in order to both have or be rid of water. All this said, it would appear that \"\"intrinsic value\"\" means \"\"I'm trying to make an objective point about a subjective value.\"\" Even if you were to try to make the case that water had some sort of baseline or average value with regards to supporting mankind and that *this* was \"\"intrinsic\"\", it would additionally be irrelevant, because the definition of supporting mankind is subjective. Do we just use just enough water to keep men and women alive across the world, without regards to health? Do we count children as half men? Do we count a non-active 50 year old female's water needs as highly as an active 16 year old male's? What about with regards to evaporation and condensation? We don't know the weather or climate changes in store, so in case of famine should we consider enough water to last 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 years? No, I'm afraid the only way to really consider what is the value of water is to drop this silly notion of intrinsic value and realize that water is worth merely what someone is willing to pay for it. And so, my argument would go, is Bitcoin.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6b5c531d9a2d0b29a663d7d10443199",
"text": "I'm not gonna debate you or your roman numerals; people like you exist everywhere and are inconsequential. I'm just surprised the other people in this sub are like-minded, like you can spit your bullshit and go unchecked here. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised idk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa8b56eb94acc86948a4221b8a79aa5",
"text": "Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness. Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world. The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas. Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance. **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so. For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet. It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant. It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets. It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks. So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first. --- Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge. They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts. You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book. Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like. I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading. --- Check out www.quantopian.com. It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries). It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately. You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time. Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube. He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets. Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits. You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself. Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now. Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world. --- With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day. You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts. There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts. Any other math is simple arithmetic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d",
"text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de76dd8be879644dd6aff119fe53a486",
"text": "Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481b8423ba7e31615b1775bafe7d3029",
"text": "I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct. The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days. If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks. Hope this clears things up!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
45edd0b6cd0c553a164aa7bf1cd411b8
|
How can I trade in U.S stock exchange living in India by choosing the broker in U.S?
|
[
{
"docid": "e45f199539d8ac4411bee0f9d02bb132",
"text": "OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"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": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6",
"text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9adf292a5fb58e5fed098aa9bcd6d516",
"text": "Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees. Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes. Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years. Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers. Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above. One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive. It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation. Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system). This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87050d8b055c683293efe139354a09a5",
"text": "I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c063e04891680356983f8ac3bbade3b6",
"text": "\"Most stock brokers are \"\"full service\"\" brokers. That is to say that you can so the same broker to buy different types of stocks, bonds, options, etc. in different markets. Some brokers are very specialized and won't allow you to do that. But those are probably brokers you don't want to use.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "520d48b13de1a346dc48497d0fcefbd6",
"text": "Which is what [flash trading](http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0809/flash-trading-wall-streets-latest-scam.aspx) is for. edit: I promise you, you could. You would just need a faster line. I promise that's why the NYSE banned it. However, that still doesn't mitigate the problem of creating your own exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2835b6174f6b3e73ae2a2cdda2658eb",
"text": "Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c2718faab7ee5008d2257c0669ca216",
"text": "\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a1eeb8bc084a1d378814a548ab4109a",
"text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746fadc47e6606d3a1730a15c59391f2",
"text": "I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53bb31c31972a52f93acbef6ac45276",
"text": "You can get direct market access (DMA) but you have to pay for data, as this is part of the exchanges data plan, and there are plenty of other fees that are passed straight down to you. Your clearing firm also has fees that are passed on to you. In general you are looking at $150 a month on the low side, in data and software fees. If you wanted pure access, NASDAQ alone charges $6,000 a month last I checked. The different routes data routes to the exchange all have different rules, and they give you rebates for some kinds of orders in some conditions. Brokers nowadays usually assume this responsibility (including collecting the rebates lol), at the very least, and charge an average price for routing your orders, a price that fits into their business plan and their target audience. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f744364c976f38ef461e3449e043a277",
"text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e18992948f103e302b59bfe41d5930",
"text": "Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84f19c18230b41f5cf0f9931dfe1fdd9",
"text": "Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d136f7a305f0ebe8718fdc3b590115ec",
"text": "As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges. Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd6c9487986c28f0e9fc0e9a7a2627c",
"text": "I wouldn't think so. If you read the list of features listed on the page you referred to, notice: Track Stocks It looks like it is restricted to the major U.S. stock markets. No mention of India's NSE.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
460e5ec36bcc72ce3c65c4f864239d1f
|
If I have $1000 to invest in penny stocks online, should I diversify risk and invest in many of them or should I invest in just in one?
|
[
{
"docid": "d260390122c29d523b7a720197f3b5a8",
"text": "I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.",
"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": "f005627c0a65c90c24df227befe02560",
"text": "There's a grey area where investing and speculating cross. For some, the stock market, as in 10% long term return with about 14% standard deviation, is too risky. For others, not enough action. Say you have chosen 10 penny stocks, done your diligence, to the extent possible, and from a few dozen this is the 10 you like. I'd rather put $100 into each of 10 than to put all my eggs in one basket. You'll find that 3 might go up nicely, 3 will flounder around, and 4 will go under. The gambler mentality is if one takes off, you have a profit. After the crash of '08, buying both GM and Ford at crazy prices actually worked, GM stockholders getting nothing, but Ford surviving and now 7X what I bought it for. Remember, when you go to vegas, you don't drop all your chips on Red, you play blackjack/craps as long as you can, and get all the free drinks you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0dc5fa4905cb40edf4151ebb4465f9b",
"text": "\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \"\"safe\"\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a30b1355b58304f5c65cc42164f37751",
"text": "These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks...",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b611ab7be380f386dbf483a0cc9637eb",
"text": "I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8857170018f503149b7d0033ac8cbc9f",
"text": "It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8",
"text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "114919b2d796acd6c72888553ba2b2f3",
"text": "Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17cee3ebfdac8768670d920046c52595",
"text": "You're wise to consider mitigating risks considering your age and portfolio size, but 'in' and 'out' are so reductive and binary. Why not be both? Leave some in and let it ride, providing growth but taking risk. Put some in bonds, where it'll earn more than cash and maybe zig when stocks zag. I applaud you for calling the last two crashes, but remember: a lot of people called them. Jeremy Bentham called the dot com bubble *years* in advance - of course, he got out too early, and the investors in his funds suffered for it. Timing means getting the sell and the buy right, which very few can do. Hence my advice to hold a balanced portfolio or *if you really do have the golden touch* make use of that ability and get rich - no need to work a 9 to 5 if you can call market crashes accurately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0ecb35fe0fd0cae4ccc61b8ec1b2d5f",
"text": "\"The \"\"$1000 is no money at all\"\" people are amusing me. Way back in the mists of time, a very young me invested on the order of ~$500 in a struggling electronics manufacturer I had a fondness for. An emotional investment, not much money, but enough that I could get a feel for what it was like owning stock in something. That stock's symbol was AAPL. This is admittedly a rare outcome, but $1000 invested over the long term isn't not worth doing. If for no other reason then when the OP has \"\"real\"\" money, he'll have X+$1000 invested rather than X, assuming 0% return, which I doubt. It's a small enough amount that there are special considerations, but it's a solid opportunity for learning how the market works, and making a little money. Anyway, my advice to the OP is as follows:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30fe1f5527b4099b5136e2ba5d9789d9",
"text": "\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7b6f25f65afb8ead7869956434ca35d",
"text": "Currently my online savings account pays an interest rate of 1.25%. With 100K, I can earn about $104 per month in that account. No risk, no timing, no fuss. So in theory you can make money by small changes in the valuations of stock. However there are often better, risk free options for your money; or, there are much better options for returns with much less risk, but more than that of a bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "299d42339e0b1c98bccb6d65c6bf819a",
"text": "The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e81649d79e7300c054869a3979bacd1",
"text": "One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky.",
"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": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c",
"text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"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": "429cfce2e24562618c7116e039d669c4",
"text": "\"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask \"\"if you ..\"\"). However, I think the true answer is \"\"it depends.\"\" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f7b36fbbabe503eaa61d96dd7e57985c
|
When I calculate “internal rate of return (IRR)”, should I include cash balance?
|
[
{
"docid": "9dc01201aa4269618c5e42e2e8990c96",
"text": "Both are correct depending on what you are really trying to evaluate. If you only want to understand how that particular investment you were taking money in and out of did by itself than you would ignore the cash. You might use this if you were thinking of replacing that particular investment with another but keeping the in/out strategy. If you want to understand how the whole investment strategy worked (both the in/out motion and the choice of investment) than you would definitely want to include the cash component as that is necessary for the strategy and would be your final return if you implemented that strategy. As a side note, neither IRR or CAGR are not great ways to judge investment strategies as they have some odd timing issues and they don't take into account risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b",
"text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62f088dba0ac32effa798e86ebec2ba4",
"text": "Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6",
"text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4101687bba339129bacff76ff10e39",
"text": "Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is $15,750, then you take out $2,000 and say your Q2 BMV is $11,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is $13,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore $15,125. True time-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations. Money-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return Logarithmic return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return Modified Dietz return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d4127f36956d651366ce1fbfaec39e",
"text": "Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a1334425c28ad0d665f9d763925dde",
"text": "You're 100% right! The IRR is the rate at which the project breaks even. You project cash flow/profitability metrics, and then you see what, under your projections, is the discount rate at which your project breaks even (the IRR). But remember, it breaks even today! So it's saying that you should make a worthwhile investment today because the return that you will obtain at points in the future are worth you putting your investment in today! You still make a healthy return overtime if you project a reasonable IRR, but your IRR is showing you whether it's at least as worth it today to put your money in today (whether, given what you'll make over the future, it's at least as worth it to put your money in today).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "459429ef21f36166ec015f3ce19a0566",
"text": "WRONG. Assuming each account has the same investment option the rate of return is not dependent on the initial amount of money in the account, but rather the allocation amongst said investment. Suppose based on your investment allocation in either account you gain 10% interest over the year. In the first scenario your ending balance will be (30000+4800)*1.10 = $38,280. In the second scenario your first account will be worth 30000*1.10 = $33,000, and the second account will be worth 4800*1.10 = 5280, for a total of 33000+5280 = $38,280.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d434bac93e59b6bc54b351997abe1226",
"text": "\"(I'm assuming USA tax code as this is untagged) As the comments above suggest there is no \"\"right\"\" answer or easy formula. The main issue is that you likely got into business to make money and if you make money consistently you will pay taxes. Reinvesting generally should be a business decision where the main concern is revenue growth and taxes are an important but secondary concern. Taxes can be complicated, but for a small LLC shouldn't be that bad. I highly recommend that you take some time closely analyze your business and personal taxes for the previous year. Once you understand the problem better, you can optimize around it. If it is a big concern, some companies buy software so they can estimate their taxes periodically through the year and make better decisions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b987480a00109e250c5865bd585c4a7f",
"text": "\"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be \"\"Crediting\"\" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85ec14f084fa130fad51e5b6d27fee4a",
"text": "> Does it make sense to calculate the IRR based on the outstanding value of the project, or just use the cash flows paid out? What is the outstanding value of the project based on? I'm guessing it is the PV of net cash flow? The timing of each cash outflow (i.e. investment) is crucial to calculating a proper IRR because of time value of money. Putting in $x each year for 49 years will give you a different figure from putting in $49x in the first year and zero for the next 48 years because a larger figure is tied up for a longer time period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba4f638e967cf689e1b735cc9daed10",
"text": "No, it would not show up on the income statement as it isn't income. It would show up in the cash flow statement as a result of financing activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9a638edb28c13980a548d2a47c26aad",
"text": "IRR is not subjective, this is a response to @Laythesmack, to his remark that IRR is subjective. Not that I feel a need to defend my position, but rather, I'm going to explain his. My company offered stock at a 15% discount. We would have money withheld from pay, and twice per year buy at that discount. Coworkers said it was a 15% gain. I offered some math. I started by saying that 100/85 was 17.6%, and that was in fact, the gain. But, the funds were held by the company for an average of 3 months, not 6, so that gain occurred in 3 months and I did the math 1.176^4 and resulted in 91.5% annual return. This is IRR. It's not that it's subjective, but it assumes the funds continue to be invested fully during the time. In our case the 91.5% was real in one sense, yet no one doubled their money in just over a year. Was the 91% useless? Not quite. It simply meant to me that coworkers who didn't participate were overlooking the fact that if they borrowed money at a reasonable rate, they'd exceed that rate, especially for the fact that credit lines are charged day to day. Even if they borrowed that money on a credit card, they'd come out ahead. IRR is a metric. It has no emotion, no personality, no goals. It's a number we can calculate. It's up to you to use it correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a68e04504132a0f2f77cc815c32f537",
"text": "Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60e096d50149b10d70b6d360eeb8e2f8",
"text": "This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef1d46e35b4796f95e4728a467cc4b46",
"text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a920f761a669fc4020f9ddbe7e8cae36
|
Stocks in India, what is the best way to get money to US
|
[
{
"docid": "4273703e27e2e5babbc54282c5330aa4",
"text": "From India Point of view; someone may put the US point of view ... As an NRI you are not supposed to hold an Ordinary Demat Account. Please have this converted to NRO NON-PINS ASAP. Related Question Indian Demat account If the shares were purchased before 1-Oct-2004, they are liable for Long Term Capital Gains tax in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2dc71470981d50a7cf756d94fc78b87",
"text": "Convert the money into United States Dollars, put it in an NRE account in India and get 5% per annum for the USD.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6",
"text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad35c8b3b24c9b66a1620abd9a2c5210",
"text": "Regular wire transfer from bank to bank would be the easiest, safest, and likely the cheapest (next to carrying cash over the border) method. Get the SWIFT info from the US bank you want the many land in (I believe all of the ones you mentioned support SWIFT wire transfers), and give it to your family in China. They'll have to find a local bank that supports SWIFT out-going transfers (might not be as easy as in the US) and send it out from there. Other, more expensive, options would be Western Union/MoneyGram. Or carrying cash over the border, which in these amounts can trigger some questioning from the authorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49b52fa20a3fd890838958f5ba4230e0",
"text": "I use xoom.com to transfer money to India. I've been using them for over 2 years now, they are the fastest and the cheapest for me (the funds are usually available the same day). They seem to have added a lot of European countries to their list. Definitely worth a shot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298",
"text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b79ee9aba5de71821740aebb9cb3c967",
"text": "There are multiple ways in which you can get money to India; - Citi Bank / HDFC Bank offere similar services [and the credit account can be ICICI Bank] - Ask for a Wire/SWIFT transfer, there would be some changes [in the range of USD 30] - Ask for a company check, it would take around 30 days for you to encash in into your bank account in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3e4e0889cafa3e615afc8b6cef174d5a",
"text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8103ffa9d823e117f04bf741c3b14fff",
"text": "Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6366fe7d18a72bc67b5c60778b0edc1",
"text": "There is no best way, you can send the money to India or invest into shares in US. It depends on the risk you are ready to take.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d5eb834909fe217fc1de584ecdacbd",
"text": "The best way is to approach your bank and fill out a transfer form to send USD to your US account (if you are visiting India). They will require quite a number of proof (AADHAR, PAN, Passport) copies. Otherwise speak to your bank about how to do a wire transfer from your India A/C to US; after de-moitization regulations have tightened, the best course of action would be to speak to your bank directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdeb757b60aa6f7d68a075db4b6f8edf",
"text": "Do an semi-online transfer. I had a similar situation where i had to transfer 5K USD to a commercial entity. You can request the publisher to give you their bank account details. You will need the SWIFT code of the bank( SWIFT code is a international code that each bank gets to transfer money) You will need bank account number, account name, bank address, address of the publisher. Then just walk into your bank with the above details. Note that you will have to visit a branch in your city that allows forex transfers. They will give you a set of forms to fill up. The above details will be needed to fill up these forms In addition to the above, you will be asked to fill up a purpose code maintained by RBI. This code is used by RBI to understand the reason why you are transferring the money. The bank will provide you with a sheet which will have these codes and explanation of these codes. Read through the codes and in case of any questions ask the bank officials to help Tip: If you have accounts with any private sector banks, please approach them. Public sector banks will give you tough time Hope this helps! Regards, Ravi",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08248f5214e8b3782b0d58a4351d7af1",
"text": "He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b05f7a664e9088a4cafcb3862dfd328d
|
How will the after market affect the open of the market tomorrow?
|
[
{
"docid": "9a82f43e62e38797137d6539f5d6b27c",
"text": "In general a stock can open at absolutely any price with no regard for the closing price or after hours price the previous day. The opening price will be determined by the best bid and offer made by people who decide to trade the next day. Some of the those people may have put orders in on a prior day that are still on the books and matter, but there's a lot of time overnight for people to cancel orders and enter new ones, which is especially likely to happen if there was substantive news overnight. As for what you can do in your case, you have the same options that you always had: Sell or hold. If you're selling, you can sell after hours, in the pre-open hours, or during the trading day. There's nothing we can say about this case that's really any different than we can say about any other stock on any other day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e9f6a7b5d010f000c388229f6abdd0a",
"text": "\"There is a white paper on \"\"The weekend effect of equity options\"\" it is a good paper and shows that (for the most part) option values do lose money from Friday to Monday. Which makes sense because it is getting closer to expiration. Of course this not something that can be counted on 100%. If there is some bad news and the stock opens down on a Monday the puts would have increased and the calls decreased in value. Article Summary (from the authors): \"\"We find that returns on options on individual equities display markedly lower returns over weekends (Friday close to Monday close) relative to any other day of the week. These patterns are observed both in unhedged and delta-hedged positions, indicating that the effect is not the result of a weekend effect in the underlying securities. We find even stronger weekend effects in implied volatilities, but only after an adjustment to quote implied volatilities in terms of trading days rather than calendar days.\"\" \"\"Our results hold for puts and calls over a wide range of maturities and strike prices, for both equally weighted portfolios and for portfolios weighted by the market value of open interest, and also for samples that include only the most liquid options in the market. We find no evidence of a weekly seasonal in bid-ask spreads, trading volume, or open interest that could drive the effect. We also find little evidence that weekend returns are driven by higher levels of risk over the weekend. \"\"The effect is particularly strong over expiration weekends, and it is also present to a lesser degree over mid-week holidays. Finally, the effect is stronger when the TED spread and market volatility are high, which we interpret as providing support for a limits to arbitrage explanation for the persistence of the effect.\"\" - Christopher S. Jones & Joshua Shemes You can read more about this at this link for Memphis.edu\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c32a3cf62ace7633294b14aec72f97",
"text": "Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0016f018e4656ea0b9eaa3555dd39a65",
"text": "\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \"\"fair\"\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a46d5e606c581f51c4649686df35aa42",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-22/hong-kong-braces-for-storm-hato-stock-trading-may-be-disrupted) reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Hong Kong upgraded the storm warning to the highest for the first time in five years and canceled its morning trading session as Severe Typhoon Hato drew closer to the financial center. > Should the signal remain in effect by noon, trading on the world&#039;s fourth-largest equity market will be scrapped for the day, according to Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd. rules. > At 9 a.m., Severe Typhoon Hato was centered about 80 kilometers south of Hong Kong, the Observatory said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vgq2t/hong_kong_delays_morning_trading_as_typhoon_hato/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~196625 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*: **Hong**^#1 **Kong**^#2 **close**^#3 **Typhoon**^#4 **trading**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37e26089960d75e1ba62ecb40a88e49",
"text": "It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work.",
"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": "adad3dee7a130f72390bc29854c47fd8",
"text": "\"NASDAQ has Pre and After market : NASDAQ Trading Schedule Regular Trading Session Schedule The NASDAQ Stock Market Trading Sessions (Eastern Time) Pre-Market Trading Hours from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Market Hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After-Market Hours from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Quote and order-entry from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Quotes are open and firm from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. You can trade in Pre/After Market but liquidity is very low. If an \"\"unexpected world events\"\" occurs, the volume/liquidity will most certainly increase. Another example is the Forex Market that's open 24/7 around the world. As one major forex market closes, another one opens. According to GMT, for instance, forex trading hours move around the world like this: available in New York between 01:00 pm – 10:00 pm GMT; at 10:00 pm GMT Sydney comes online; Tokyo opens at 00:00 am and closes at 9:00 am GMT; and to complete the loop, London opens at 8:00 am and closes at 05:00 pm GMT. This enables traders and brokers worldwide, together with the participation of the central banks from all continents, to trade online 24 hours a day. src\"",
"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": "912044904c25c867405c94192153e981",
"text": "What if there is only one trading day and the volume is smaller than the open interest on that one trading day. This is assuming there is no open interest before that day? I pulled this from a comment. This can't happen. We have zero open interest on day one. On day 2, I buy 10 contracts. Volume is 10 and now open interest is also 10. Tomorrow, if I don't sell, open interest starts at 10 and will rise by whatever new contracts are traded. This is an example. I removed the stock name. This happens to be the Jan'17 expiration. The 10 contract traded on the $3 strike happen to be mine. You can see how open interest is cumulative, representing all outstanding contracts. It's obvious to me the shares traded as high as $5 at some point which created the interest (i.e. the desire) to trade this strike. Most activity tends to occur near the current price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31e6bf09f431ab5959949c087591b78b",
"text": "Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c0ba6d26ca860bf07777e2e195e6ea",
"text": "\"4PM is the market close in NYC, so yes, time looks good. If \"\"out of the money,\"\" they expire worthless. If \"\"in the money,\"\" it depends on your broker's rules, they can exercise the option, and you'll need to have the money to cover on Monday or they can do an exercise/sell, in which case, you'd have two commissions but get your profit. The broker will need to tell you their exact procedure, I don't believe it's universal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049c73e6636485e2c9f7dcfce0f14540",
"text": "No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "739a5cc8792b387f4c5766483658062d",
"text": "The dynamics of different contracts and liquidity can be quite different on the last day on the month and for intraday trade make sure you use bid-ask data as opposed to historical trades. I'm not saying whether it works or not, but im just giving you ideas to improve your testing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e27b6781f38db37c316c375eee28629",
"text": "Thank you for the comment, New markets open and close all the time, its interesting seeing the new characters appear here as a certain country demands a supply of a new certain product. You feel a bit ahead of the trends here sometimes in that respect. Thanks",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
86759cb57ea4894718276e7bbdf65d95
|
Balance sheet, Net Increase
|
[
{
"docid": "bf0488e4b2668aa8c95afceeafb04a40",
"text": "The changes to Equity given are: Since the total change is 42,500, the difference would be change in Retained Earnings (net income), so net income is",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c7487e4e9f05ef9095d429fe366d9cc5",
"text": "The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c",
"text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03012414b99a9299647d1deae6efedac",
"text": "Are you trying to figure out if a project would increase the market value of equity? I think your issue is that the Market value of Equity will not be updated with the NPV of 40M (Assuming it is truly +, not sure if it's true with 50M of debt). EV = Market Value of Equity + Debt - Cash and CE Ev - Debt + Cash and CE = Market equity value. So I think you would have to update the market value of Equity up with 40M. This would then lead to EV = Equity Value + future income stream discounted + debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c57244613aca8ac7979581637850f14",
"text": "If you didn't have deposits, then the growth rate is simply ((p1/p0)^(1/t))-1, where p0 is the initial balance, p1 is the current balance, and t is the number of periods. For example, suppose you started the account with $100,000 in 2000. It's now 2015 -- 15 years later -- and the balance is $240,000. So the growth is: If you're making regular deposits, especially if you're making deposits of unequal amounts, the problem becomes much more complex. The easiest thing to do is probably to create a spreadsheet. Make a column for principle, a column for deposit amount, and a column for percent growth that period. Assuming A is principle and B is deposit, then the formula for growth C is =((A2-A1-B1)/A1-1)*100. Copy this formula down the column and Excel should automatically adjust the row numbers. Assuming you put one row for each month you can see the growth (or loss) month by month. You can get a general idea of what your overall growth rate has been by taking the average of the monthly amounts, but this would not be a truly accurate measure of your total growth because presumably (hopefully) you have more money in the later months than the earlier months. But it would be a good measure of how your investments are doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a20efbbbed8b0fbcf9f7f16b49f52e5",
"text": "Part A solution: Assume no turnover in A.: Average Balance * Annual Interest - Average Balance * Annual Cost of funds + Annual Fee = Profit from A Profit From A = Average Balance * Interest Rate - Cost of Funds * Average Balance + Annual Fee So for B here is the sneaky thing, the Average Balance is 1/12 of the Volume... That makes it really simple... Volume * InterChange - Average Balance * Cost of Funds + Annual Fee = Profit From A Volume = 12 x Average Balance So: 12 x Average Balance * Interchange (0.015) - Average Balance * Cost of Funds (0.04) + Annual Fee (Say 50)= Profit From A (260) 0.18* Average Balance - 0.04 * Average Balance = 210 Average Balance = 210/.14 Annual turnover = 12* Average Balance Come @ me bro :p",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695e0970638ca4d8e1098729232d4bfb",
"text": "Expense accounts are closed into equity. Same with revenue. So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d490c9d90a246d57c38d959aa8024770",
"text": "This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "339ef1f96d5656fa5394bf7a619b4c32",
"text": "You have defined net profit to include all income and, presumably, expenses. Specifically, you are including income from other sources and are including finance costs and tax expense. For the quarter ended June 30, 2015, the net profit, by your definition, is 12.58. This is given on line 9 of the PDF. You ask how you can review this information. You cannot, given only the PDF you linked to. Note that the numbers have not been audited so it is the case that no trusted third party has yet reviewed it and signed off that the information is accurate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfd122bd9fab80baa3b6d76c8f2a0c1",
"text": "Lucky you - here where I live that does not work, you put money on the table year 1. Anyhow... You HAVE to account for inflation. THat is where the gain comes from. Not investment increase (value of item), but the rent goes higher, while your mortgage does not (you dont own more moeny in 3 years if you keep paying, but likely you take more rent). Over 5 or 10 years the difference may be significant. Also you pay back the mortgage - that is not free cash flow, but it is a growth in your capital base. Still, 1 flat does not make a lot ;) You need 10+, so go on earning more down payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c96e617f294c24e6721181ac817418af",
"text": "First, A credit account is increased by credit transactions and decreased by debits. Liabilities is a credit account and should be a positive number. A debit account is increased by debit transactions and decreased by credit. Assets is a debit account and should be a positive number. Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (credit) may be positive or negative. You currently are subtracting a negative number for a net positive, since your Liabilities is set as a debit account. How you currently are set -> Equity = Assets (debit) - Liabilities (debit) It is easier to understand if you change the columns from Increase/Decrease to Credit/Debit. I believe this is changed through Edit > Preferences > Accounts > Labels > Use formal accounting labels. To fix your situation, open up the Loan account and switch columns on the amounts. This will decrease Opening Balances and increase the loan, per your current column headings. This is a snippet of Opening Balances. You see that Opening Balances is debited and the Loan/Liability account credited. I included Petty Cash to show the reverse. Petty Cash is an asset, so it credits Opening Balances and debits Petty cash. This is a student loan Liability account. As you see, the Opening Balance is debited and decreased. The loan is credited and Liabilities increased. As payments are made, the reverse happens. The loan, being a credit account, is debited and the balance decreases. Opening Balances moves closer to 0 as well. The savings account, being a debit account, is credited and the balance decreases. There has been no change in Equity since Liabilities and Assets decresed by the same amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "684d7001ce736907f3d1b01865d78eaf",
"text": "Specifically I'm trying to understand this pargraph: >Stripping the German mobile-phone unit of its cash and increasing its net debt before the IPO could help lower the unit’s average cost of capital, said Carlos Winzer, a senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. >“Telefonica Deutschland had a very strong cash position and no debt, so this move will allow the German unit to have a more efficient balance sheet structure,” said Winzer, who has covered Telefonica for 20 years How does moving cash from the German unit to the Spanish Telefonica unit induce a more efficient balance sheet structure for the German unit? Appreciate any help!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea009c9cb60a6fff7331e6abd1e3c1e",
"text": "\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d77881dc3d8a425eeea4703c169e0b3",
"text": "\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \"\"indirect\"\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e274f05f179d5f78f95a8a9cb8ddda90",
"text": "> But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes. wat If E(ROA)>0 it's a sound investment? Not at all. > any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company Where is this money coming from? If it's debt-financed it escapes corporate tax rate because interest payments are deductible. Is it coming from the company's retained earnings? We have less of that now because we hiked up the corporate tax rate. Your argument also neglects the impact corporate taxes have on equity financing and corporate leverage.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
096c87135bfdeaa0631e69d9c8caf67b
|
What are overnight fees? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "63de4b8a0b02285435349aac69fa015c",
"text": "From the etoro website: In the financial trading industry, rollover is the interest paid or earned for holding currency overnight. Each currency has an interest rate associated with it, and because currencies are traded in pairs, every trade involves two different interest rates. If the interest rate on the currency you bought is lower than the interest rate on the currency you sold, then you will pay rollover fees. If the interest rate on the currency you bought is higher than the interest rate of the currency/commodity you sold, then you will earn rollover fees. http://www.etoro.com/blog/product-updates/05062014/important-upcoming-change-fee-structure/",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e216b8086ba2920e1ff98ceb87590304",
"text": "Its not just late fees. The fees for going over your credit limit are exorbitant. To make things worse, they will rearrange the transactions you make during a day so that they can charge you more by making more of them fail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439151cb6e1e678a8e181775962fbbeb",
"text": "\"Charge less money. That's the only thing. What that really means is negotiating lower ticket prices with venues, not removing fees. People don't realize that Ticketmaster's business model is shielding venues from public ire, not adding arbitrary amounts to tickets for the minor service of buying online, a service everyone knows costs very little to perform. The arbitrary fees mostly go back to the venue per their agreement, however, they're divided out as \"\"admin fees\"\" and \"\"processing fees\"\" and \"\"convenience fees\"\" charged by Ticketmaster so that Ticketmaster eats the blowback instead of the venue charging exorbitant prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "743c6881d0b842774d1c99412f4e33aa",
"text": "\"> \"\"So I'll either stop shipping prescriptions or switch to FedEx or UPS -- which cost me three times what the USPS currently charges.\"\" Basically, the USPS is delivering overnight packages for 1/3 the cost of FedEx and UPS and can't make that work. So now business costs will go up when sending things overnight as they're forced to switch to private carriers. Thus, in essence, the USPS has been \"\"subsidizing\"\" business that send things overnight.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a72d3d0c6af58a24af1bad27a75d7846",
"text": "If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "346dde80264c35ac1d211efd5b83ad38",
"text": "\"My gym has a habit of randomly increasing our monthly payment with a $20 \"\"Special Fee\"\" a couple times a year. This charge was not initiated until after I signed up, and signed authorization for a set monthly fee. The agreement I signed included no wording of this fee, so I have not given them permission to charge me this fee. I also have received no type of notification of this fee prior to it being charged to my credit card on file. This seems very illegal to me. Am I right? What course of action might I have to get this stopped?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d899808fa90a16ba03f9f52314a91313",
"text": "So I can get a maximum of $25.50 (17x1.50) in ticketmaster credit, that I can only use $3 at a time. And if I am part of the subclass for UPS overnight shipping, I get an extra $5. BREAK OUT THE MOTHERFUCKING CHAMPAGNE AND CAVIAR BITCHES!!!! OPF CLAIMS - ALL CLASS MEMBERS If you take no action, and the settlement is approved by the Court, you will automatically receive, via email at the most recent email address associated with your purchases on Ticketmaster.com, discount codes (“Codes”) which can be used for future purchases for U.S. events from Ticketmaster’s Website (except for events at venues owned or operated by AEG as set forth in the Settlement Agreement). For each transaction that you made during the Class Period, you will receive one code via email for a $1.50 discount, up to a maximum of 17 codes. This does not include the additional benefits, for the UPS Subclass members, which are described below. The Codes may be combined up to a maximum of two credits ($3.00) that may be applied on future transactions as described above. The Codes are non-transferable, expire 48 months from distribution, and may be redeemed only for purchases made using the email address to which they were sent (or an updated address provided to the Claims Administrator or Ticketmaster and verified as belonging to the Class Member). UPS SUBCLASS MEMBERS If you are a member of the UPS Subclass, you will be entitled to additional relief under the Settlement. Specifically, for each transaction you made using UPS delivery of your tickets (up to 17 transactions), you will receive one UPS code (“UPS Code”) via email, for $5.00 off subsequent expedited delivery fees on purchases from Ticketmaster’s Website (except for events at venues owned or operated by AEG as set forth in the Settlement Agreement) of tickets that are shipped via UPS or some other form of overnight delivery that Ticketmaster may offer in the future. These UPS Codes may not be combined, and only one UPS Code may be used per transaction. However, this benefit may be used for a ticket order together with the OPF Code described above. The UPS Codes are non-transferable, expire 48 months after they are first usable, and may be redeemed only for purchases made using the email address to which they were sent (or an updated address provided to the Claims Administrator or Ticketmaster and verified as belonging to the Class Member).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c743007f4e745fb1bbad1caed4a16da7",
"text": "I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea7ad98d87baa9eb86994523cdf01adb",
"text": "/r/personalfinance might be better. Not really sure where this falls... this sub is more for just specific financial industry news and topics. Here's the DOL page. In all honesty, I'd imagine it'd be considered fair if the law only required him to pay you hourly for the work periods during the day so long as they expensed all your travel expenses. Seems absurd to give you 24 hours of pay if you're going to go stay overnight somewhere that's already paid for by the employer and work a normal day. http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs53.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "280680d5d3ddc6cf6b0754c78c200143",
"text": "I recently engaged in a dispute with a ski resort that was proposing several hotels (about 500 rooms) along with a new lodge, which will host conventions. I have a home (3 bedrooms) I rent on Airbnb located next to the resort and was a statutory party to their permit hearing. After all was said and done, I managed to take away approximately 250 parking spots, forcing them to build a parking garage. They were permitted for the new lodge, which they are building now, but not for the hotels. I will now be able to raise my rates as there will be a severe lack of short term housing to accommodate the new lodge.",
"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": "c4da0f6689c697989f3e85d5e528ac56",
"text": "\"It says that you are exempt \"\"as long as such interest income is not effectively connected with a United States trade or business\"\". So the interest is from money earned from doing business with/through AirBnb, a US company. So you will have to report it. Even if your bank doesn't send you a 1099-INT, you have to report it, unless it is under $0.49 because the IRS allows rounding.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49c8e0800f5550f63ded1f3beb94a283",
"text": "Get a checking account with Ally Bank. They refund all ATM fees from within the US, so effectively, every ATM transaction will have no surcharge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53be1ba189808d8c123d1c6ab5e021f5",
"text": "If you are careful, you don't need to spend much more than the cruise price. The cruises I've been on, they biggest extra was soda and alcohol (mainly wine with dinner). If you are fine drinking water or iced tea, there is no need for that. Food extras, like ice cream at the pool, may be an extra charge as well. The way it works is that your room key acts like a credit card, and gets charged to your room. Its easy to run up a big bill if you aren't paying attention, so you may want to keep track of it as you go along. You can also go to the pursers office at any time and find out your current account. Generally, the cruise automatically charges a certain amount per day for tips for your room steward and dining room attendants. You are expected to tip for spa services (another extra charge) and shore excursion guides. Shore excursions vary greatly depending on what you are doing. Maybe $50-$100 per person for a bus tour to much more than that for things like scuba diving, or fishing. You can also either book tours yourself, or just get off and wander around. It depends where you are going. Many times, the ships dock far away from anything you might want to see. There are generally taxis or shuttles to the tourist places, but that is another charge. Shipboard internet is generally charged by hour, and quite expensive (several dollars per hour). Part of the attraction for me is unplugging completely, so I generally don't bother. On older ships, you probably are limited to the internet lounge. Some of the newer ships have wi-fi in the state rooms as well. The drinks on board aren't cheap, but not outrageous either. Probably similar to an upscale club. They also have a daily drink special, which is cheaper. Technically, you aren't allowed to bring your own alcohol on board. If you buy something in a port, you need to check it with them. This policy may vary by cruise line, but has been true on the Princess and Costa cruises I've been on. That said, as long as you are low-key, they probably won't know or care.",
"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": "f76bbd6a16d8ffce02efdb14a4d6b3a4",
"text": "If such an investment existed, then why would the banks be parking their overnight funds with the Federal Reserve at an interest rate of pretty much nothing?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fa571526cb342d943c64a5ce61bb7198
|
ETF vs Mutual Fund: How to decide which to use for investing in a popular index?
|
[
{
"docid": "39492e88918af1379b36febbe48059de",
"text": "The factors to consider:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a",
"text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "162d2a7ad9d5eafea67b74c1c5ec389c",
"text": "If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "767b1dc8168c2f5921549d593189f0dc",
"text": "\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78324133f5ee24f7ae0dc6de65f65c25",
"text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d",
"text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a2597ff9b7701bb15d381e14a0bc724",
"text": "\"What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon? Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index. I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the \"\"average\"\" that an index give you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d68b02b590f00b6b9e569a4648f50fa8",
"text": "\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbb037d43fbddf31cc04e52bfcb39196",
"text": "\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc",
"text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "446c12b0d6ce872ec6a585017050af10",
"text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b7485e54f14bda079a021ac233b0c0d",
"text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472",
"text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12af5a0013c778afa9b7314dc89d6493",
"text": "ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39039f0f18b9a5f0ebc766f87a502934",
"text": "In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a",
"text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2959a2d3ba81411ae55c07a1df56331c",
"text": "consider capital requirements and risk timeframes. With options, the capital requirements are far smaller than owning the underlying securities with stops. Options also allow one to constrain risk to a timeframe of ones own choosing (the expiration date of the contract). If you own or are short the underlying security, there is no time horizon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
118e64bdf02bc121b85a4eaf7e9a4e41
|
What is the best way to invest in US stocks from India?
|
[
{
"docid": "a2835b6174f6b3e73ae2a2cdda2658eb",
"text": "Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e7e18992948f103e302b59bfe41d5930",
"text": "Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd746187d7e1e6c66158ebf47d88f054",
"text": "If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2880cc32f51a709d7cc91acef8eb9e",
"text": "\"Let's handle this as a \"\"proof of concept\"\" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a \"\"market order\"\". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c57729cf0043a40ec5c398a84e76d568",
"text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"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": "6e6e4c9676c2c9c5010d52c899a1b3b6",
"text": "i have been trading with dollarbird Trading firm for past 1 year there is absolutly no problem everything is fine you can google them to find anything about them.they have provided me with LASER trading platform which requires a bit of training as in to know the software but i can say one thing trading in US Equity market exp. is very diffrent from indian market they are very mature market and highly liqd and have good volatality to trade best equity market to trade with great trading platform you should have a exp. to trade on US equity it is diffrent",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a76276245be23f904dc51d7b091f2012",
"text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a83c41e0a07b2235e9e033cc4f9bab3",
"text": "Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d",
"text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "891a48e8f329a6a527c31d7f8957e8d0",
"text": "\"OptionsXpress is good. I have used them for many years to trade stocks mainly (writing Covered calls and trading volatility). You set the account up through OptionsXpress Australia, and then fund the account from one of your accounts in Australia (I just use my Bank of Queensland account). The currency conversion will be something to watch (AUD to USD). The rates are low, but one of the best features is \"\"virtual trading\"\". It allows you to give yourself virtual funds to practice. You can then experiment with stop-losses and all other features. Perhaps other platforms have this, but I am yet to see it... anyway, if you want to trade in US stocks you are going to need to switch to USD anyway. ASX never moves enough for my interests. Regards, SB\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4f07701547ca7c0b29722ef041bc00",
"text": "\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5274ad1059ec9a4012af453cf4769d2",
"text": "Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe6a244802810aefdd7973dec0655cc2
|
What are my risks of early assignment?
|
[
{
"docid": "113742bbdb9cf59fa9a788140d27ddcd",
"text": "One reason this happens is due to dividends. If the dividend amount is greater than the time value left on a call, it can make sense to exercise early to collect the dividend. Deep in the money puts also may get exercised early. There's usually little premium on a deep in the money put and the spread on the bid-ask might erase what little premium there is. If you have stock worth $5,000 but own puts on them that will give you $50,000 upon exercise (and no spread to worry about), the interest you can gain on the $50k might be more than the little to no time value left on the position... even at several weeks to expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51b5c76d797c8d5ec07442442d21a783",
"text": "The put vs call assignment risk, is actually the reverse: in-the-money calls are more likely to be exercised early than puts. Exercising a call locks in profit for the option holder because they can buy the shares at below market price, and immediately sell them at the higher market price. If there are dividends due, the risk is even higher. By contrast, exercising an in-the-money put locks in a loss for the holder, so it's less common.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d459e150ca648cfee8e5b0562028f8cf",
"text": "Interns are not hired to do work, they are hired so that people at the company can get a look at their abilities in a real situation (not an interview) before hiring them for real. This way instead of 30% of your new hires being a dud, it's more like 5%, because the bad ones were filtered out in the intern process. If you are self-motivated and good enough, then it's quite possible that you will start getting real work while you're at the company, as opposed to throwaway assignments that nobody cares about. Once you're in that position, it means they trust you to actually accomplish something, and you will be viewed as a hopeful hire. Assuming you like the company, getting into that position is half the value of the internship. So I'd take it as-is with one caveat - ask them about schedule flexibility ahead of time, explicitly for the purpose of making sure your class schedule works. If they're a decent place to work for they will probably grant you that point outright. EDIT: One more note. If you've got a favor to burn, save it. Use it if you like the place and need to ask them for an H1B sponsorship, or any other kind of immigration assistance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48cd4949e3ad440ad5a9dc2de50fcca8",
"text": "\"Nobody is going to hold your hands and prepare a structured program, simply because how you deal with this situation is part of the evaluation of your performance. I performed poorly in my first intership because I was really afraid of being perceived as annoying. The guys were not very receptive and when I asked if they could teach me something, they usually explained quickly and without a lot of attention. Dumb as I was, I would try to not annoy anyone anymore, stop asking questions and go back to my chair to create some macros in VBA. When my boss gave me the feedback after some months, it was fucking awful. The whole team said that my posture was too passive and that I should be A LOT MORE agressive. So, don't be afraid to be a little annoying. Ask a shit ton of questions until you understand everything and don't pretend that you understood something (I used to do the classic \"\"mm-hmm...mm-hmm...\"\" when someone was explaining something I wasn't understanting because I was afraid of looking dumb. Don't do that, you aren't fooling anyone). If you feel that there is nothing for you to do, go to your boss and say that to him. If he doesn't find something, go ask someone else (\"\"Hey man, what are you doing there? Seems interesting. Can you teach me when you have the time?\"\") Just for Christ's sake, don't keep your butt in the chair waiting someone to tell you what to do. This is not college anymore.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5319fce97219fcf592177ea477d4494",
"text": "Great, thank you very much! I guess I will just do my 7/66 first and then worry about the others (CFP or CFA) later if I really want to get them. I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t doing something I didn’t *really* need to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98398da01efbe021f1bc313cfaa8aead",
"text": "For conversions you do not to be 59-1/2 to avoid penalty. The 5-yr rule thus creates an early withdrawal option if planned well in advance. See the flow chart in http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch02.html#en_US_2012_publink1000231030 For where I sourced the answer. Note : I edited to correct my answer. User102008 called me out on my mistake, and rightly so. The dialog is in the comments, where he points out the mistake. Good job, new User.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f15c805501c2179fe1b63291c4daf753",
"text": "Besides spending all your money, and then not being able to find a new job when you want to and where you want to, the biggest risk is the lack of health insurance. Research your options regarding your existing insurance under COBRA. It will cover your preexisting conditions at the full price of the insurance, that means without the contribution from your employer. Make sure you have fully investigated the options to understand your out of pocket maximums, and the full price of insurance. You will also have to understand the maximum amount of time you are covered under COBRA. If your unemployment goes beyond that period of time, you will have to get individual insurance. You need to avoid a gap in coverage or when you do get a new job, the insurance may not cover some preexisting conditions. Before NASA send astronauts to the space station for months, they give the astronauts a full physical, including a visit to the dentist and eye doctor. It would be advisable to do the same before announcing to the employer that you plan on quitting. the insurance will generally transition to the COBRA program at the end of your last work day. Because both of you work you could do the transition is phases. One would quit, then spend their time getting the sabbatical site established. The insurance would come from the employed spouse during this transition. Some employers do have sabbatical programs where they will ease your transition if you are going to work on your education full time, or work for a charity. They will need you to return at the end of an agreed time period. Even if they don't have a official sabbatical period they usually have a reemployment plan. If you return before the time period expires, usually one or two years, you aren't considered a new employee. That can be important for years of service calculations for a pension, vacation and sick leave earned, 401K matching.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76f88f0cd1824938c0967712aa2c1b41",
"text": "First, don't owe (much) money on a car that's out of warranty. If you have an engine blow up and repairs will cost the lion's share of the car's bluebook value, the entire car loan immediately comes due because the collateral is now worthless. This puts you in a very miserable situation because you must pay off the car suddenly while also securing other transportation! Second, watch for possible early-payment penalties. They are srill lokely cheaper than paying interest, but run the numbers. Their purpose is to repay the lender the amount of money they already paid out to the dealer in sales commission or kickback for referring the loan. The positive effects you want for your credit report only require an open loan; owing more money doesn't help, it hurts. However, interest is proportional to principal owed, so a $10,000 car loan is 10 times the interest cost of a $1000 car loan. That means paying most of it off early can fulfill your purpose. As the car is nearer payoff, you can reduce costs further (assuming you cna handle the hit) by increasing the deductible on collision and comprehensive (fire and theft) auto insurance. It's not just you paying more co-pay, it also means the insurance company doesn't have to deal with smaller claims at all, e.g. Nodody with a $1000 deductivle files a claim on an $800 repair. If the amount you owe is small compared to its bluebook value, and within $1000-2000 of paid off, the lender may be OK with you dropping collision and comprehensive coverage altogether (assuming you are). All of this adds up to paying most of it off, but not all, may be the way to go. You could also talk to your lender about paying say, 3/4 of it off, and refinancing the rest as a 12-month deal.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8",
"text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6e1c7be19e14244540a6cc23e28f71c",
"text": "- Would you want to work in an environment where your pay drops significantly if a large client leaves? You do nothing wrong, the client goes bankrupt, and you're assigned the work of smaller accounts to fill out your work week but you're making 15% less despite being more experienced than the year before and doing a great job. - Whoever is handling assignments would be granted an obscene amount of power within the organisation. How do accounts get shuffled fairly? Are people assigned permanently or do they get shuffled around to even things out? In short, your idea could be very good for the company, but terrible for the employees. Innovation would stagnate (or be kept to each employee in the hopes of gaining an edge), office politics would increase, and the environment could turn toxic quickly. Turnover would probably increase as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f96bfee69cfdf9f7b0449bd154e8df2",
"text": "As you point out in your question your risk level is personal. If you really believe your job is stable there is no more risk. However the overall evidence is that most jobs are less stable, and if you do lose your job you're likely going to be out of work for a while. One thing to consider though is that if you have planned on emergency credit in the past, that option is not really viable anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "276f2d9f5e360c3c23e8e092a020d02c",
"text": "If you know that you want that advanced degree; And there is a way to have your employer pay for some of it or all of it; And you are reasonably certain that you will not be quitting for X years after completing the degree; Then it is financially sound to consider having the company pay for it. If you are interested in finding out if an advanced degree in that field is possible/feasible for you; but you aren't 100% sure; And it is possible for your company to pay for the first few classes; then it is financially sound to consider having them pay for the first semesters worth of classes. The key is to determine if the company has a requirement that you must complete the degree, or you will owe them the money. In many cases you are not committed to having them pay for all semesters. I have known employees who used the company to pay for the early classes, then paid for the last few on their own. Keep in mind that most employers only pay you for the classes that you have good grades; they require you to submit paperwork before the semester; but don't pay you back until after the semester. Because of a rolling time frame you can protect yourself by keeping in reserve the maximum amount that you would have to repay the employer if you quit. For the companies I have worked for you only had to stay an extra year, you would only have owed them for that last year if you quit. Keeping a years tuition in reserve allows you to mitigate the risk of having to quit. If the question is about risk, then hedging make sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c97110c32f226e776d5bfe11a4844d3",
"text": "I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032",
"text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4eeed1ef12f17beb4e7a2a0d12b5fcc",
"text": "\"Since it's not tagged united-states, I'd like to offer a more general advice. Your emergency fund should match the financial risks that are relevant to you. The two main classes of financial risk are of course a sudden increase in costs or a decrease in income. You'd have to address both independently. First, loss of income. For most, this would simply equate to the loss of a job. How much benefits would you expect to get, and for how long? This is often the most important question; the 6 months advise in the US is based on a lack of benefits. With two incomes, you're less likely to lose both jobs at the same time. That's a general advise, though. If you both work for the same employer, the risk of losing two jobs at the same time is certainly real. Also, in countries with little protection against dismissal (such as the US), the chance of being layed off at the same time is also higher. On the debit side, there are also two main risks. The first is the loss or failure of an essential possession, i.e. one which requires immediate replacement. This could include a car, or a washing machine. You already paid for one before, so you should have a good idea how much it costs. The second expenditure risk is health-related costs. Those can suddenly crop up, but often you have some kind of insurance. If not, you'd need to account for some costs, but it's hard to come up with an objective number here. The two categories are dependent, of course. Health-related costs may very well coincide with a loss of income, especially if you're self-employed. Now, once you've figured out what the risks are, it's time to figure out how to insure against them. Insurance might be a better choice than an emergency fund, especially for the health costs. You might even discover that you don't need an emergency fund at all. In large parts of Europe, you could establish a credit margin that's not easily revoked (i.e. overdraft agreements), and unemployment benefits are sufficient to cover your regular cost of living. The main risk would then be a sudden lack of liquidity if your employer goes bankrupt and fails to pay the monthly wages, which means your credit should be guaranteed sufficient to borrow one month of expenses. (This of course assumes quite good credit; \"\"pay off my car\"\" doesn't suggest that.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
934b51a9371d18a5d1ce7fa240eeeeda
|
Which forex brokerage should I choose if I want to fund my account with over a million dollars?
|
[
{
"docid": "b047dc87c3ad4c48201382f49eba180a",
"text": "Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "212b89c0dfad33c644815e8141a0949d",
"text": "With your experience, I think you'd agree that trading over a standardized, regulated exchange is much more practical with the amount of capital you plan to trade with. That said, I'd highly advise you to consider FX futures at CME, cause spot forex at the bucket shops will give you a ton of avoidable operational risks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4",
"text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c63128c5b3cf8b867f2169768f02a9a2",
"text": "Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d2be572341d183b1ad2c23b8e6ef4c",
"text": "Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84b5b8c8ef42cad5494a1aef39fc1fab",
"text": "\"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b981325eca720c5c9aa02344cf8bde80",
"text": "\"There are \"\"strict\"\" regulations about co-mingling customer funds with other high risk investments. People that lost money were not investing in MF Global, they simply had trading accounts there. A lot were just hedging commodities (like farmers) to help stabilize prices for themselves. Imagine having a 1 million dollar trading account at E-trade annnnnnd it's gone, because the company illegally was using YOUR money to cover losses in some high risk investment. Would you be pissed- should someone goto jail?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68bec031f7a21d023816981423ba9160",
"text": "I used XE trade once several years ago. I found them quite easy to use after the slightly fiddly account setup process (needed for security/anti-money laundering I think). I trusted them because I'd been using their online FX rates for a long time. I can't really comment on the specific questions you ask though as this was a long time ago and I haven't needed one since.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e4704418d257227d647692a04fec2e",
"text": "If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "170473bd8e884ff4f8835a20e2c6cc1b",
"text": "Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3b29e8075a13386c894ae62e8f3d167",
"text": "According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d880b5026c820d20291b65f8cfa7baa5",
"text": "\"I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you \"\"could\"\" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e74fbe8c8fb6c2e5882b9e9b841fa878",
"text": "You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38983f5811ca126fbb64a7d8027e265a",
"text": "Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly. The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated. That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well. In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy. In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars. Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years). I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market. Seems pretty easy, right ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "304b9221d2ada7e5d6cf98f57419d1a4",
"text": "You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a83c41e0a07b2235e9e033cc4f9bab3",
"text": "Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0b0c91c231ec94c32f8795569131c6c0
|
What does it mean when someone says “FTSE closed at xxx today”
|
[
{
"docid": "0ceeb3adb94d61f97649673b4ed5dc25",
"text": "FTSE is an index catering to the London stock exchange. It is a Capitalization-Weighted Index of 100 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange with the highest market capitalization . When somebody says FTSE closed at 6440, it basically means at the end of the day, the index calculated using the day end market capitalization of the companies, included in the index, is 6440.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d7e68b067e5eb68018165fb4cb2d8f1",
"text": "It's sort of the sum of stock prices, but bigger companies are weighed more heavily.",
"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": "4a8ff89be169d4386afa9703d41dbe4a",
"text": "You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it? Have you collected the data? It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares. Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2370ce29b34e888e4953cbc89dbead98",
"text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07f11ef961fba7897da39b6b1e87f3e",
"text": "The interpretation is correct. The Reuters may give you the London 4PM rates if you query after the close for the day. The close rate is treated as the rate. http://uk.reuters.com/business/currencies/quote?srcAmt=1&srcCurr=GBP&destAmt=&destCurr=USD The London 4PM rate may be obtained from Bank of England at the link below; http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxSTxTIx&levels=1&XNotes=Y&XNotes2=Y&Nodes=X3790X3791X3873X33940&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=false&A3836XBMX3790X3791.x=4&A3836XBMX3790X3791.y=3 Or any other Bank that provides such data",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da",
"text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8851d458841a55b140337c80cb1702",
"text": "\"The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices. This is what is called the \"\"generic\"\" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period. You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market. So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the \"\"4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019\"\". The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27. This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Here, the \"\"nominal price\"\" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date. Note that the title of the bond indicates a \"\"nominal\"\" yield of 4.25%. This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%. In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25. This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27. It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story. In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond. If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold. When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield. In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB. The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics.\"",
"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": "a7d9132f205e3cc966b4f2f0534c76c4",
"text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2e48515aa9d61db8cdfc0c509211815",
"text": "\"he is saying that \"\"QE\"\" meaning \"\"quantitative easing\"\" meaning \"\"the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks\"\" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up. It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years \"\"QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!\"\"\"",
"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": "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": "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": "a2f37bc6af67f10fac5bbeda9a07bc0d",
"text": "\"Institutions and market makers tend to try and stay delta neutral, meaning that for every options contract they buy or write, they buy or sell the equivalent underlying asset. This, as a theory, is called max pain, which is more of an observation of this behavior by retail investors. This as a reality is called delta hedging done by market makers and institutional investors. The phenomenom is that many times a stock gets pinned to a very even number at a particular price on options expiration days (like 500.01 or 499.99 by closing bell). At options expiration dates, many options contracts are being closed (instutitions and market makers are typically on the other side of those trades, to keep liquidity), so for every one standard 100 share contract the market maker wrote, they bought 100 shares of the underlying asset, to remain delta neutral. When the contract closes (or get rid of the option) they sell that 100 shares of the underlying asset. At mass volume of options traded, this would cause noticeable downward pressure, similarly for other trades it would cause upward pressure as institutions close their short positions against options they had bought. The result is a pinned stock right above or below an expiration that previously had a lot of open interest. This tends to happen in more liquid stocks, than less liquid ones, to answer that question. As they have more options series and more strike prices. No, this would not be illegal, in the US attempting to \"\"mark the close\"\" is supposedly prohibited but this wouldn't count as it, the effect of derivatives on stock prices is far beyond the SEC's current enforcement regime :) although an active area of research\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7798a497f460a1874486ef14357ec956",
"text": "There are banks and credit unions that don't charge fee for incoming wire transfer. You most likely won't get that from big brick and mortar banks like BofA, Citi but if you are doing it regularly, using another bank that offers it free would save you a lot. Since ACH are free, you can transfer money between those banks to your regular bank (e.g. BofA) for free. There would be delay involved in this process due to additional ACH. You could also use one these banks as your primary bank to avoid that delay. Credit unions are also generally fee friendly and many would offer free incoming wire transfer. However you are limited to what is available to you as all of them would have some membership criteria.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe7c12e0c35f70fc6995557a3a7579e6
|
Is it legal to not get a 1099-b until March 15?
|
[
{
"docid": "aae960d23c9df2ece3adbc6604646ba6",
"text": "\"If one looks at the \"\"Guide to Information Returns\"\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \"\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\"\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \"\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\"\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \"\"complications\"\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16751293163f70b8b38d46f634cf3a96",
"text": "The deadline to mail is February 15. However, if the form is being prepared by a middleman (i.e. Wells Fargo) then they have until March 15th (on page 24). Also, if you haven't received your 1099 form by February 14, you may contact the IRS and they will contact and request the missing form on your behalf. I know that's a lot of information, but to answer your question, yes, there are situations where March 15th is the deadline instead of February 15th.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a4bd4532cbf311f482521dedb9c34ea4",
"text": "\"As long as you paid 100% of your last year's tax liability (overall tax liability, the total tax to pay on your 1040) or 90% of the total tax liability this year, or your underpayment is no more than $1000, you won't be penalized as long as you pay the difference by April 15th. That's per the IRS. I don't know where the \"\"10% of my income\"\" came from, I'm not aware of any such rule.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fbee9831e6442f6cf8d4f9f3c712b6",
"text": "I can't find specific information for Form 1099-DIV for this tax year. However, I found this quote for next tax season that talks about Form 1099-B: Due date for certain statements sent to recipients. The due date for furnishing statements to recipients for Forms 1099-B, 1099-S, and 1099-MISC (if amounts are reported in box 8 or 14) is February 15, 2018. [emphasis added] I know many brokerages bundle the 1099-DIV with the 1099-B, so one might assume that the deadlines are the same. February 15 seems consistent with the messages I got from my brokerages that said the forms will be mailed by mid-February.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4462ce3779ad4d896b290b0c34ec9834",
"text": "There are penalties for failure to file and penalties for failure to pay tax. The penalties for both are based on the amount of tax due. So you would owe % penalties of zero, otherwise meaning no penalties at all. The IRS on late 1040 penalties: Here are eight important points about penalties for filing or paying late. A failure-to-file penalty may apply if you did not file by the tax filing deadline. A failure-to-pay penalty may apply if you did not pay all of the taxes you owe by the tax filing deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is generally more than the failure-to-pay penalty. You should file your tax return on time each year, even if you’re not able to pay all the taxes you owe by the due date. You can reduce additional interest and penalties by paying as much as you can with your tax return. You should explore other payment options such as getting a loan or making an installment agreement to make payments. The IRS will work with you. The penalty for filing late is normally 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. That penalty starts accruing the day after the tax filing due date and will not exceed 25 percent of your unpaid taxes. If you do not pay your taxes by the tax deadline, you normally will face a failure-to-pay penalty of ½ of 1 percent of your unpaid taxes. That penalty applies for each month or part of a month after the due date and starts accruing the day after the tax-filing due date. If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae5066c9a5bc07ef196332219cdba89b",
"text": "\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7acb0fe6e2fb77240b7fcaafd353a62b",
"text": "\"Some of this may depend on how your employer chose to deal with your notice period. Most employers employ you for the duration (which means you'd be covered for March on your insurance). They could 'send you home' but pay you (in which case you're an employee for the duration still); or they could terminate you on your notice day, and give you effectively a severance equal to two weeks' pay. That is what it sounds like they did. They should have made this clear to you when you left (on 2/23). Assuming you work in an at-will state, there's nothing wrong (legally) with them doing it this way, although it is not something I believe is right morally. Basically, they're trying to avoid some costs for your last two weeks (if they employ you through 3/6, they pay for another month of insurance, and some other things). In exchange, you lose some insurance benefits and FSA benefits. Your FSA terminates the day you terminate employment (see this pdf for a good explanation of these issues). This means that the FSA administrator is correct to reject expenses incurred after 2/23. The FSA is in no way tied to your insurance plan; you can have one or the other or both. You still can submit claims for expenses prior to 2/23 during your runout period, which is often 60 or 90 days. In the future, you will want to think ahead when leaving employment, and you may want to time when you give notice carefully to maximize your benefits in the event something like this happens again. It's a shady business practice in my mind (to terminate you when you give notice), but it's not unknown. As far as the HSA/FSA, you aren't eligible to contribute to an HSA in a year you're also in an FSA, except that they use \"\"plan year\"\" in the language (so if your benefits period is 6/1/yy - 5/31/yy, that's the relevant 'year'). I'd be cautious about opening a HSA without advice from a tax professional, or at least a more knowledgeable person here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e29685e4fc19ff48e0634c8621dfe68",
"text": "If you're waiting for Apple to send you a 1099 for the 2008 tax season, well, you shouldn't be. App Store payments are not reported to the IRS and you will not be receiving a 1099 in the mail from anyone. App Store payments are treated as sales commissions rather than royalties, according to the iTunes Royalty department of Apple. You are responsible for reporting your earnings and filing your own payments for any sums you have earned from App Store. – https://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/01/app-store-lessons-taxes-and-app-store-earnings The closest thing to sales commissions in WA state seems to be Service and Other Activities described at http://dor.wa.gov/content/FileAndPayTaxes/BeforeIFile/Def_TxClassBandO.aspx#0004. When you dig a little deeper into the tax code, WAC 458-20-224 (Service and other business activities) includes: (4) Persons engaged in any business activity, other than or in addition to those for which a specific rate is provided in chapter 82.04 RCW, are taxable under the service and other business activities classification upon gross income from such business. - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-224 I am not a lawyer or accountant, so caveat emptor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7",
"text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08ce58ecb8c53049e321d3a7a58234a2",
"text": "Note that folks may also be shopping for supplies for a nonprofit tax-exempt organization. I made such a purchase a few weeks ago. Whatever the legal basis of the exception, you need to be able to prove to the store that you have it. If you can't, they must collect the tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d581f5da4cbbd3a23e4b057cf1e03f0d",
"text": "\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e20fcec6c8c6bffd7c63b45263466c2",
"text": "\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \"\"excess contribution\"\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \"\"early withdrawal\"\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52",
"text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b891606bf041cfd022f36635be258918",
"text": "This form is due March 15. This year, the 15th is Saturday, so the deadline is Monday March 17th. Keep in mind, the software guys would have two choices, wait until every last form is finalized before releasing, or put the software out by late November when 80%+ are good to go. Nothing is broken in this process. Keep in mind that there are different needs depending on the individual. I like to grab a copy in early December, and have a preliminary idea of what my return with look like. I'll also know if I'll owe so much that I should send in a quarterly tax payment. The IRS isn't accepting any return until 1/31 I believe, so you've lost no time. When you open the program, it usually ask to 'phone home' and update. In a couple weeks, all should be well. (Disclosure - I have guest posted on tax issues at both TurboTax and H&R Block's blogs. The above are my own views.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98e4a30799ac22fdf632c7ade120ac85",
"text": "\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ae846da79dfb8cf406399d59a40041",
"text": "For questions 1 and 2. 1) If you are packing the loans into a CDO, they are being sold on the open market. Once it achieves a AAA rating, as most did even though they were mostly subprime, alt a, or arm, it is sold and shipped off the originator's books (While the originator of the CDO collects X% in fees) Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk. Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc. Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again: a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend. b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results. c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to. I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book [Crisis Economics](http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508) Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis [The Big Short](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324140607&sr=1-1) If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with [Boomerang](http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324140665&sr=1-1)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30bf137e511d09d4938a14afc10266e8",
"text": "Actually to be truth full..it was a little more.I believe 62 before closing costs.We also had to do a few repairs....However still yea it would be hard to buy the land and build for that price.Unless your in a really depressed area.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
77bb194a93e0b77a98aec857a0ec4252
|
Market index analysis and techniques
|
[
{
"docid": "c7bdf878050a0ce633c13691f39664af",
"text": "Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "979158a3361ada6e39994e1e8d9d4f5e",
"text": "\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b",
"text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "ad0a217c2532cb01456a088330002756",
"text": "\"I expect that data may be copyright. Data that's published (e.g. on a newsfeed or web site) is subject to terms of use. Standard & Poor's web site says, about the Shiller indexes, Who do I contact at S&P to license my use of these indices? Questions regarding licensing the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices can be addressed to: Bo Chung Managing Director bo_chung@standardandpoors.com, +1.212.438.3519 As for 'recording' the information yourself, that may depend on how and where (e.g. from what source) you're recording it. If for example you tried to record prices from the Canadian MLS (Realtor's) network, they too have their own terms of use on the data they publish. Copyright laws vary from country to country (and terms of use certainly vary): for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural which is case law about copyrighting a phone directory in the USA, and contrast that with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right which is European legislation. So who owns data if it is determined by free market? I guess that \"\"determined by free market\"\" means that buyers and sellers are publishing their offers-to-buy and their offers-to-sell, and I guess that the publisher (e.g. the stock exchange) has 'terms of use' about the data (the offers) that they're publishing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "143cfe560ff80440b66f8f14d274ece6",
"text": "Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f1eb22c5ceb023258ce59d1b6a06a9f",
"text": "\"The S&P 500 index is maintained by S&P Dow Jones Indices, a division of McGraw Hill Financial. Changes to the index are made periodically, as needed. For Facebook, you'll find it mentioned in this December 11, 2013 press release (PDF). Quote: New York, NY, December 11 , 2013 – S&P Dow Jones Indices will make the following changes to the S&P 100, S&P 500, MidCap 400 and S&P SmallCap 600 indices after the close of trading on Friday, December 20: You can find out more about the S&P 500 index eligibility criteria from the S&P U.S. Indices methodology document (PDF). See pages 5 and 6: Market Capitalization - [...] Liquidity - [...] Domicile - [...] Public Float - [...] Sector Classification - [...] Financial Viability - Usually measured as four consecutive quarters of positive as reported earnings. [...] Treatment of IPOs - Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index. Eligible Securities - [...] [...] Changes to the U.S. indices other than the TMIX are made as needed, with no annual or semi-annual reconstitution. [...] LabCorp may have a smaller market cap than Facebook, but Facebook didn't meet all of the eligibility criteria – for instance, see the above note about \"\"Treatment of IPOs\"\" – until recently. Note also that \"\"Initial public offerings should be seasoned for 6 to 12 months\"\" implies somebody at S&P makes a decision as to the exact when. As such, I would say, no, there is no \"\"simple rule or formula\"\", just the methodology above as applied by the decision-makers at S&P.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6",
"text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "341d6a2a406972d0c1356d6762328b87",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ecc70f06b1d857067088599dea1266",
"text": "\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de6c4401e481d9f660c967f3307c4199",
"text": "My logic for prices was this: S&P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "12e3cd95793efde1432fabbc58f73874",
"text": "Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca41d7db1b793e37d2a3a3973139132e",
"text": "\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8e000ce29b956ae7bcccec3da2a0681f
|
Asset classes: Is a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) considered a bond?
|
[
{
"docid": "2e05a04d881f65fdccdb59f25afca97a",
"text": "There is a third type of asset that a GIC falls into: Cash. So while it does share some characteristics of a bond, such as (often) having a fixed interest rate, and having the ability to ladder their maturities, they would generally be considered part of your Cash component of your portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98c5dcb0d753943e9231dbea1e0df135",
"text": "\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "26ab88c2da901106d4f0286c66eec052",
"text": "it's just a passthrough security essentially. sofi packages a bunch of loans, refinances them for the student, and you invest in sofi corporate debt as they pass through the returns on the loan to you in the form of bond cpns. i mean its not exactly the same, but its pretty close",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ede0311d87e2bff0e8d2762637c840e7",
"text": "this would make sense assuming debt payments incl. interest to the market for the debt assumed to purchase said boat/yacht is less than the lease payments over the life of both terms. If your lease payments are lower than term loan pmts incl. interest (or a similar debt instrument) then OP would still be right. TVM is irrespective of a competitors (or lessor in this case) Kc. Although, this goes completely out the window if it's a bond-like debt vehicle since those cash flows are distributed in a completely different manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b64e6f44cfffa8152c4f202306b9333",
"text": "Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c01e8025f37a2255ffd3c048d8b06a",
"text": "Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400 million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100 million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a 15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc84d9ca973aeea4e184a8ddea4f3d16",
"text": "\"In theory, the term of the bond does not affect the priority. It does not matter whether a \"\"Junior Subordinated Debenture\"\" is due in one year or sixty, it is still lower priority than a \"\"Secured Note\"\". On the other hand, if the \"\"Secured Note\"\" is secured by something that is not worth as much as the note, the excess is an unsecured debt. In practice, the term of the bond has two effects: Short term debt holders are more likely to get out just before the company goes broke. Sometimes their efforts to get out are exactly what causes the company to go broke! (\"\"Commercial paper\"\" is even more fickle than banks.) All other things being equal, and depending on the terms of the loan, some bonds get priority over bonds of the same type that are issued later. For example, your first mortgage usually takes precedence over your second mortgage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "580b87fa9582f0ad27639ac85955d59a",
"text": "\"Looking at the list of bonds you listed, many of them are long dated. In short, in a rate rising environment (it's not like rates can go much lower in the foreseeable future), these bond prices will drop in general in addition to any company specific events occurred to these names, so be prepared for some paper losses. Just because a bond is rated highly by credit agencies like S&P or Moody's does not automatically mean their prices do not fluctuate. Yes, there is always a demand for highly rated bonds from pension funds, mutual funds, etc. because of their investment mandates. But I would suggest looking beyond credit ratings and yield, and look further into whether these bonds are secured/unsecured and if secured, by what. Keep in mind in recent financial crisis, prices of those CDOs/CLOs ended up plunging even though they were given AAA ratings by rating agencies because some were backed by housing properties that were over-valued and loans made to borrowers having difficulties to make repayments. Hence, these type of \"\"bonds\"\" have greater default risks and traded at huge discounts. Most of them are also callable, so you may not enjoy the seemingly high yield till their maturity date. Like others mentioned, buying bonds outright is usually a big ticket item. I would also suggest reviewing your cash liquidity and opportunity cost as oppose to investing in other asset classes and instruments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d97bf4bb1460ad297443f840144b63f",
"text": "To my knowledge, the only bond ever issued by a notable state into perpetuity was the Bank of England...and it was a miserable mess for all the obvious reasons. Edit : They were called consuls, and it appears i was wrong about them being catastriphic for the BOE. I'm sorry, i guess i must be cruising the permabear backwoods or something. Here's some interesting links i found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consols http://www.immediateannuities.com/annuitymuseum/annuitycertificatesofthebankofengland/consolidatedannuities/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/03/debt-crisis-0?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/hundredyearsofsolvency",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6e7a6a6cd8d34129e8d86c385ff0517",
"text": "GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5f637de23473422719e110e6896e210",
"text": "You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caeb923f77b21e2486ed1b64f5c179df",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeb3bb8fced68cce0fe42afe380faf2d",
"text": "\"There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK. I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the \"\"iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index.\"\" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible. AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds. There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues. Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way. They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1de019cd6cceea000d667a6014036f01",
"text": "Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5deef2630ffa2e73d3b10b904136e079",
"text": "\"In addition to the advice of @karancan, If you wish to stay strictly with GICs, there are better ways to find good GIC rates, than looking at advertising from institutions you are already dealing with. This site, http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/data/rates?order=d&pageType=gic_long&sort=IR1&page=1&tax_indicator=N (among others) display impartial GIC rates for many institutions and terms of investment, in sortable form. Many of these institutions allow on-line purchases and transfers, requiring only a \"\"regular\"\" bank account as a source/destination for on-line transfers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43edc39c145d3f08bc65729cd44c8faa",
"text": "Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9809c147132289c22108e3217cc46335
|
Is it a bet on price fluctuations and against the house?
|
[
{
"docid": "552243c06cb75a4f1b13b9c76e218d17",
"text": "The answer depends on the specific instrument to which you are referring. It is possible to make straight bets that are cash-settled and in which the underlying commodity or instrument will never be bought or sold. It is also possible to have such a contract be settled in the underlying (if the cash value is appropriate, then the cash settlement can be used to purchase the underlying directly, if necessary). Physical delivery was predominant until the last few decades. Most traders, as opposed to hedgers or strategics, are going to prefer cash-settled contracts as opposed to physical delivery. It is possible to make trades with a brokerage firm such that the firm pays if the trader wins the bet. The firm will typically find parties on the other side to even out this bet and leave itself neutral as to the outcome (plus a small premium it charges each side for the cost of making the market). The cost charged to one contracting party should be set by the dealer in relation to prices being charged to parties making the opposite, matching bet (in this way, brokers are following market price, while traders are setting it). Financially, options and contracts can be settled for cash or for the underlying, and they can be made directly with the opposite bettor or with a neutral dealer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d111d0a34e4c97ece2156e010e6b1b4e",
"text": "\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"",
"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": "39a848a90a40001a3be0c299807ab126",
"text": "\"In gambling, the house also takes a cut, so the total money in the game is shrinking by 2-10 percent. So if you gain $100, it's because other people lost $105, and you do this for dozens of plays, so it stacks up. The market owns companies who are trying to create economic value - take nothing and make it something. They usually succeed, and this adds to the total pot and makes all players richer regardless of trades. Gambling is transactional, there's a \"\"pull\"\" or a \"\"roll\"\" or a \"\"hand\"\", and when it's over you must do new transactions to continue playing. Investing parks your money indefinitely, you can be 30 years in a stock and that's one transaction. And given the long time, virtually all your gains will be new economic value created, at no one else's expense, i.e. Nobody loses. Now it's possible to trade in and out of stocks very rapidly, causing them to be transactional like gambling: the extreme example is day-trading. When you're not in a stock long enough for the company to create any value (paid in dividends or the market appreciating the value), then yes, for someone to gain, someone else must lose. And the house takes a cut (e.g. Etrade's $10 trading fee in and out). In that case both players are trying to win, and one just had better info on average. Another case is when the market drops. For instance right after Brexit I dumped half my domestic stocks and bought Euro index funds. I gambled Euro stocks would rebound better than US stocks would continue to perform. Obviously, others were counterbetting that American stocks will still grow more than Euro will rebound. Who won that gamble? Certainly we will all do better long-term, but some of us will do better-er. And that's what it's all about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "039a71f141e848c3fc83ed22020c9e98",
"text": "If you feel the house will appreciate, I'd say go for it. I'm not familiar with the Denver market but real estate can be a great way to build wealth. Besides, it seems like at this point you would lose your earnest money deposit if you back out. I do agree with people here though about the potential risk. The only way to make money is if the property appreciates. In Seattle, properties have appreciated like crazy in the past 5 years. Some have even gone up by 3x or 4x of what it was before. If you are right about appreciation in your market, this could be a gold mine. With all investments, there is risk involved. If you do plan to move forward, here are some suggestions: Best of luck!",
"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": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5",
"text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b80dec281f6800034b79e3a748a187d",
"text": "Its all about speculation. Like stocks, real estate fluctuates and is sometimes volatile. Educate yourself on the house you are buying and the area it is in. I wouldn't spend over 20% of current net worth on a house. Its all a gamble. And you have to think realistically whether or not you can AFFORD losing all the value of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d918de5487dc487d2778b3f08eaca73",
"text": "\"Chris, this is an arbitrage question with a twist: you cannot treat the location you want to live objectively. For example, why not SoCal instead of Texas? Yes, SoCal's expensive but what if you account for the weather? This question is very interesting for me personally: something I am going to focus on myself, soon, as well. To the question at hand: it's very hard to get a close estimate of the price from a single source, say, a website. The cost of a house is always negotiable and there's no sticker price, and there begins your problems. However, there are some publicly available information which websites aggregate, see: http://www.city-data.com/ Also, some heuristics might help: Rent is at-least as expensive as the monthly mortgage, (property) taxes, HOA fees, etc. Smart people have told me this, and this also makes sense to me as the landlord is in this business to make some money after all. However, there are also other hidden costs of home ownership that I am not aware of in details (and which I craftily sidestepped in my \"\"etc\"\" above) that could put a rental to be \"\"cheaper\"\". One example that comes to mind is you as a tenant get to complain if the washer-dryer misbehaves and demand the landlord get you a new one (see how you wouldn't make a sound were you to own it however) Such a website to gauge rentals: http://www.rentometer.com/ Houses cost more where the median income is more. Again, you cannot be objective about this because smart people like to live around smart people (and pay for the privilege). Turn again to http://www.city-data.com/ to get this information Better weather is more expensive than not so good weather. In the article you linked, notice the ratio of homes in California. Yes, I know of people who sold off their family ranches in Vancouver and Seattle to buy homes in Orange Country. In short, there is a lot of information you would have to gather from multiple sources, and even then never be sure that you did your best! This also includes arbitrage, as you would like to \"\"come out ahead\"\" and while you are doing your research (and paying your rent), you want to invest your \"\"savings\"\" in instruments where you earn more than what you would have saved in a mortgage, etc. I would very much like to be refuted on every point and my answer be edited and \"\"made better\"\" as I need the same answers as you do :-D Feel free to comment, edit your question etc and I will act on feedback and help both of us (and future readers) out!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a145b5ee9ce9c6ae6b82003ba3e842a",
"text": "If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b",
"text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3c3f7d8b8ea34d9e2946cdc47094ef5",
"text": "What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries). Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued. So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4bec4b0c95ec95619b283d75b8bdf3e",
"text": "Your reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this: You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc. Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least. Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't. Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52dd0524880c77310d6b0a90912745d9",
"text": "\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bc46add7bfe3ee10ee4eb7f944b698a",
"text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a18c18f6b6591c375d4587f16548dc7a",
"text": "In a strictly mathematical sense, no. Or rather, it depends what 'long run' means. Say today the home average is $200K, and payment is $900/mo. The $900 today happens to be about 20% of the median US monthly income (which is approximately $54,000/yr). Housing rises 4%/yr, income 3%/yr. In 100 years (long enough?) the house costs $10M but incomes are 'only' $1.03M/yr, and the mortgage, even at the same rate is $45K/month, or, to be clear, it rose to 52% of monthly income. My observation is that, long term, the median home costs what 25% of median income will support, in terms of the mortgage after downpayment. Long term. That means that if you graph this, you'll see trends above and below the long term line. You'll see a 25 year bubble form starting in the late 80's as rates dropped from near 18% to the Sub-4% in the early 00s. But once you normalize it to percent of income to pay the loan, much of the bubble is flattened out. At 18%, $1500/mo bought you a $100K mortgage, but at 3.5%, it bought $335K. This is in absolute dollars, wages also rose during that time. I am just clarifying how rates distort the long term trends and create the short term anomalies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
172afc911d351dbc9582e20bb4d3f10b
|
Oil Price forcasting
|
[
{
"docid": "b5577687015abf8effe0f8e71efa4b86",
"text": "The Oil futures are exactly that. They are people forecasting the price of oil at a point of time in the future where they are willing to buy oil at that price. That said, Do you have evidence of a correlation of Price of oil to the shares of oil stocks? Oil companies that are good investments are generally good investments regardless of the cost of oil. If you did not know about oil futures then you might be best served by consulting an investment professional for some guidance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ce1cee0983831c85823c1166a154b4e",
"text": "\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd51c8b0f826c8b008476a7bd09e4a32",
"text": "If past is prologue, I'd say $20, give or take, inflation adjusted of course. http://www.antagoniste.net/WP-Uploads/2007/01/oil_prices_1861_2006.jpg If supplies are at nightmare oversupply, say, as an absurd unlikely scenario, 82 year high in US oil supplies or an all time record in EIA weekly inventories, it looks like the oil price could be capped at the cost of oil sands: This one's just plain scary. Unless if there were some changes refinery laws or technology that I'm not aware of, refineries cutting 50% of the retail gasoline volumes looks bad:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3a59c57da20adef21327a28f4e6b7f5",
"text": "\"Sure, and I made it clear in my post that I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong. But the author does a poor job of arguing his point, his argument in the article is based on an unsubstantiated claim that a certain activity is bad. He says it \"\"impairs price performance\"\" but offers no proof that this occurs. Now granted, I haven't had a chance to look at the data either, but as myself and other posters have mentioned, this claim is quite debatable. I need a bit more material to be convinced.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "018370cc6d766b838bd463ba78f8bbc3",
"text": "I am not hooked up to the US MSM, so i dont know if they have really said what the article claims it is saying. (or that way, or that much) But the whole article claims the idea there will be more oil is bullshit, and that the MSM is covering it ... poorly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e565dff7908157a23a049aca8e6aa30",
"text": "No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01706bac2eb5968e35feb904cbea1381",
"text": "Gone are the days when in India, the fuel price was revised on every fortnight. Many times you would have filled up the tank one day before to save few bucks. Now, from 16th June 2017 onwards, Government has decided to revise the daily fuel price at 6 AM according to the international crude oil and dollar prices with respect to rupee value. The notion behind taking this step was just to remove the big leap in fuel rates and also a government initiative to maintain the demand and supply situation in equilibrium.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0299e0e2742cda3ef07689492964a8",
"text": "I used to trade power for a closed end hedge fund. Yes, weather derivatives are very important. They help power traders / utilities hedge for unaccountable variables, IE weather. For example, lets say it costs a utility $50 an hour to produce power for the load when it is 80 degrees outside. Lets say I trade the contract with them to guarantee the weather will be under 80 degrees. If the weather is higher than 80 degrees, more people turn in their AC, the load on the grid goes up, and the utility has to start generating power at $70 an hour. Under this contract, I would be liable to pay the utility the net difference in their cost (the additional $20 per hour they generate per mw). In that case I am a loser. If the power comes in under 80 degrees, I make money as I priced (sold) the contract at a premium according to the risk I calulated for offereing the contract. This has many many applications, but yes, its not a weird thing to trade. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cad8151c8bf74c3cb7cd47218f79ec3c",
"text": "Summarized article: Recent mishaps causing supply disruptions at 14 California refineries caused wholesale gas prices to reach an all-time high of $4.39 per gallon. Local gas stations increased prices to 30 cents or more per gallon overnight, with some stations charging as much as $5.79 per gallon. Some stations chose not to buy high-priced wholesale gas for fear they wouldn't be able to sell it. While others shut off their pumps after they ran out of the gas they bought at lower wholesale prices. Some of the refinery mishaps include an oil pipeline problem, a power outage at Exxon Mobil Corp's Torrance refinery and a shutdown of the crude distillation unit at Chevron Corp's Richmond refinery. It is unknown when wholesale prices will come down but one solution may be to allow refineries to switch over from the summer blend to the cheaper winter blend earlier than planned. The California Energy Commission is considering the idea but notes an early switch over could impact air quality. The summer blend reduces evaporation of pollutants during warm weather which would be less damaging to air quality in California's current heat wave. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06d2f6233e1a92a2bfff3ee90a2f8a83",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529852301/boom-time-again-for-u-s-oil-industry-thanks-to-opec) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Oil producers across the country are watching to see what OPEC does at its meeting in Vienna this week, since the cartel of oil-exporting countries has recently played a big role in turning around a two-year U.S. slump. > There are more than twice as many U.S. rigs drilling for oil as a year ago, a turnaround that&#039;s felt keenly in places like the Bakken oil patch in North Dakota. > In the dizzying boom-bust cycle of the oil industry, things were crazy busy here a few years back, when a barrel of oil was around $100. But that led to a surge in production that flooded the market, pushing the price of oil down. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejcc3/boom_time_again_for_us_oil_industry_thanks_to_opec/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133536 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Oil**^#1 **Dakota**^#2 **price**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **Job**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1036b5a2d57545cec61d53dda57b458c",
"text": "On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a66e981710e458857583f84a3a86316",
"text": "There is some precedent but not to the same degree: http://blogs.worldbank.org/prospects/what-can-history-tell-us-about-cartels-commodity-markets The surplus of oil is scrutinized more because (1) it is vitally important and (2) it has been successfully restricted three times (Standard Oil, TRC, OPEC) over relatively long periods of time .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc5fd33e0a1483b15dfee7f63f2cb6c",
"text": "[Here's](http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart) what I found. I think the gist of it is that because we've invested so heavily in pumping domestic oil in North America, it's lowering worldwide demand. Countries that rely really heavily on oil revenues, like Russia, Venezuela, Libya, Saudi etc., suffer when oil prices drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1067dd18b9d8b1ceff059de0557e2110",
"text": "Just because pricing isn't tracked, doesn't mean the dollar price is not backed up by oil (they are others factors involved, of course). But the very fact that OPEC, the worlds largest oil cartel, currently only trade in dollars, effectively means that everyone who wants oil needs dollars to buy it. Therefore, to function in modern global economy, dollars are always needed regardless of exchange rates or interest rates on bonds. In reality the amount debt the US has backed up against its currency wouldn't hold for any other country, apart from US, with its petrodollar status.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75eb6b18fbd847609b48d145eea7c83f",
"text": "\"It's not impossible to forecast the future price of a commodity. However, it's exactly that; an educated guess, much like the weather, and the further out that prediction is made, the higher the percentage error is expected. A lot of information is gathered by various instruments, spotters etc at a very high cost of time and money, to produce a prediction that starts breaking down after about five days and is no more than a wild guess after about ten. How accurately a price can be forecast depends on the commodity. There are seasonal and thus cyclical changes in many commodities, on top of which there is a general trend which is nearer term. A pretty decent prediction can thus be arrived at with a relatively simple seasonally-adjusted percentage change algorithm; take a moving average of the last few measurements, compute the percent change versus the same period last year (current minus last divided by last) and multiply it by last year's number for the current day or month to arrive at a pretty decent prediction for the current and near-future periods (up to about as far ahead as you have looked behind). Another thing you may need to do is normalize. Many price graphs are very jittery; the price of a stock may fluctuate many percentage points on a single day, and there's a lot of \"\"noise\"\" inherent in them. A common tool to normalize is a box-and-whisker plot, which for a given time period will aggregate all samples within that period, and give you a measurement of the lowest sample, highest sample, median, and quartiles (the range of each 25% of the full sample space). Box plots can also be plotted on the \"\"interquartile range\"\" or \"\"middle fifty\"\"; this throws away the very noisy outliers and constructs a much more regular plot from the inner part of the bell curve. You can reverse-engineer a best-fit line connecting the elements of each box, and the closer two lines are, the more likely the real future data will be around that area (because the quartile between those to lines is very dense; 25% of the values are in a very small range meaning many samples occurred there). Lastly, there are outside factors that are not included in simple percentage growth. Big news must be taken into account by introducing more subjective guesses about future data. If you see an active hurricane season coming (or a hurricane bearing down on Galveston/Houston) then it's reasonable to assume that the price of oil and/or refined oil products (like gas and jet fuel) will skyrocket. A cyclical growth model will not predict these events, but you can factor in the likelihood of a big change with a base onto which you add last year's numbers, and onto that you add regular growth. Conversely, when a huge spike happens due to a non-cyclical event like a natural disaster, you must smooth it out by reducing the readings to fit in the curve, otherwise your model for next year will expect the same anomaly at the same time and so it will be wrong. These adjustments are necessary, but the more of them you make, the less the graph reflects real history and the more it reflects what you think it should have been.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa664c057893bc74d2c32aeb7a8a58b",
"text": "What would be the best way to estimate / calculate the basis risk exposure of a commodity trading company? Naturally companies are very cagey when it comes to such info, but is there a way to come up with an approximate number?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17bf504fcbf1cba3d0b4ea70911e7d59",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN19A029) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If the rig count holds at current levels, the bank added, U.S. oil production would increase by 770,000 bpd between the fourth quarter of last year and the same quarter this year in the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara shale oil fields. > India, which recently overtook Japan as Asia&#039;s second-biggest oil importer, took in 4.2 percent less crude oil in May than it did a year ago. > In China, which is challenging the United States as the world&#039;s biggest importer, oil demand growth has been slowing for some time, albeit from record levels, and analysts expect growth to slow further in coming months. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6i59zv/oil_prices_dip_on_further_rise_in_us_drilling/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~147659 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*: **Oil**^#1 **U.S.**^#2 **percent**^#3 **year**^#4 **crude**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9948929aaf617dfbf4968b14dc626dc",
"text": "The papers you would need to buy are called 'futures', and they give you the right to buy (or sell) a certain amount of oil at a certain location (some large harbor typically), for a certain price, on a certain day. You can typically sell these futures anytime (if you find someone that buys them), and depending on the direction you bought, you will make or lose money according to oil rice changes - if you have the future to get oil for 50 $, and the market price is 60, this paper is obviously worth 10 $. Note that you will have to sell the future at some day before it runs out, or you get real oil in some harbor somewhere for it, which might not be very useful to you. As most traders don't want really any oil, that might happen automatically or by default, but you need to make sure of that. Note also that worst case you could lose a lot more money than you put in - if you buy a future to deliver oil for 50 $, and the oil price runs, you will have to procure the oil for new price, meaning pay the current price for it. There is no theoretical limit, so depending on what you trade, you could lose ten times or a thousand times what you invested. [I worded that without technical lingo so it is clear for beginners - this is the concept, not the full technical explanation]",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ca4bfe74c1c05b3ba3b73b764b6d5dc8
|
Related Hedges (How do they work?)
|
[
{
"docid": "d3fcc98a23ecf60d847d502cb52a0209",
"text": "In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "862701abf9ce54de7a4210aa28b673a8",
"text": "I will be messaging you on [**2021-06-15 14:54:56 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-06-15 14:54:56 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6cvvei/a_hedge_fund_manager_is_supporting_a_free_masters/dixuco3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6cvvei/a_hedge_fund_manager_is_supporting_a_free_masters/dixuco3]%0A%0ARemindMe! 4 years ) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! dixvaea) _____ |[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/) |-|-|-|-|-|-|",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05e87d41ee53fac21f7ce4f9b2fcdd3c",
"text": "As far as i understand the big companies on the stock markets have automated processes that sit VERY close to the stock feeds and continually processes these with the intention of identifying an opportunity to take multiple small lots and buy/sell them as a big lot or vice/versa and do this before a buy or sell completes, thus enabling them to intercept the trade and make a small profit on the delta. With enough of these small gains on enough shares they make big profits and with near zero chance of losing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7a66aad95b9c6b7ab472878f1956f3d",
"text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c931e46f81de6d63fdb5f24ab5231f46",
"text": "The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "6869e51ad55dcef0b71c420f217c259e",
"text": "\"Would still be affected by energy prices, labor, weather, and any other input they don't have full control over. Labor and weather can never be controlled. Other users of beef may have a derivative hedge. A derivative hedge would likely provide more direct (maybe short term) protection than a vertical integration hedge. With a financial hedge all of the secondary risk factors are \"\"incorporated\"\" while with vertical integration you are still left with the risk of each and every input to the final product that you do not control. Vertical integration is done for a lot of reasons and it doesn't always result in lower than market costs, especially over any given period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abd87f263f7ed405142c0df571494ae6",
"text": "They just let you borrow a little more every months. When the owner dies/sells they get all their money + % back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3404e341bf5756a2c279342735393e13",
"text": "The word 'hedge' emerges from early agriculture when farmers would ask the market for a minimum buy price for each crop they planted. They used this method to stop loss against any major losses. Investors today use this strategy when they are unsure of what the market will do. A perfect hedge reduces your risk to nothing (except for the cost of the hedge).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f290b6b7267cdc08773f05cce5cc6509",
"text": "Oh I get it now, I got confused cause your comments wasn't added below the other ones you had written before, it doesn't show up in the comment chain https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6io7o5/how_can_i_profit_off_of_bubbles/dj96e4o/ same with this one, I'm guessing you wanted to reply to https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/6io7o5/how_can_i_profit_off_of_bubbles/dj9jk91/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50473990a1f2b82126d6e9f61a574282",
"text": "Inflation protected securities (i-bonds or TIPS). TIPS stands for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. By very definition, they tend to protect your savings against inflation. They won't beat inflation, but will keep up with it. TIPS or iBonds have two parts. A fixed interest part and a variable interest portion which varies depending upon the current rates. The combined rate would match the inflation rate. They can be bought directly from the treasury (or from a broker or bank who might charge a commission)",
"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": "90dfc0db81605a307939ab82a25f7f97",
"text": "A simple example - When looking at oil trading in different locations first I have some back of the envelop adjustments for the grade of oil, then look at storage costs (irrelevant in the case of electricity) and transport costs between two locations to see if physical players are actively arbing the spread. No strong views on reading material in this specific area - Google, google scholar and amazon all have relevant material. When it comes to your current problem, here are some questions to think about: 1. Is the power generated from the same commodity at location A and location W? 2. How has the spread changed in the past? Has trading location W actively hedged the worst cases of prices moves in location A? 3. Is it feasible to trade the commodity that location A generates the majority of its power from/how does that compare to electricity trading at location W as a hedge? 4. If hedging is really desirable, are you sure you can't do an illiquid over the counter hedge at location A? Paying a little bit more in the bid/ask for the hedge could be more desirable than trying to jump into a market you yourselves don't quite understand. 5. If your consultants come back with just some hedge ratios without discussing what drives the spreads between the two locations and where the spreads are currently be skeptical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adba6287db65fa68298869931d7b20e9",
"text": "There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a7d547e55d03b32ca20ae91478f7c0a",
"text": "The biggest problem is that the rate of return for a completely immunized program is really low. Especially, now, given the low rate of return, the cost of such a program makes it nearly unfeasible, unless you assumed a ridiculously low rate of return (<1% return). As it is, they're assuming a 4.5% rate of return, which is about 2% above inflation, a very very conservative forecast. Plus, not every pension plan could immunize their plans. All that does is shift interest rate risk (btw, not the only type of risk that exists, there's credit risk as well. To get rid of both, you'd be getting marginally above 0% return, not something you can run a pension plan on). So, you'd have to have someone or some set of people that have a very large and very unnatural interest rate risk. If you had a large move in rates, it would demolish those people, which would completely invalidate those hedges. It's much better for the economy on whole that pension plans are able to take credit and interest rate risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e74a4f44ed1e8e97ae3bfd5f3b6892",
"text": "\"Let's summarize your relative's problem: How is this possible? If both of those statements are true, then he should be able to explain exactly why those statements are true, and then you can explain it to us, and then we can all nod our heads and admit, \"\"Wow, that makes sense. Proceed if you want to.\"\" But until that happens I suggest you take the advice I offered in the first paragraph of this answer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6d4f86f8e02f80215cfb13453d229958
|
What is the purpose of a Share owner services?
|
[
{
"docid": "fc295cbc2414b81fc1c98c6719ee76db",
"text": "\"Wells Fargo Shareowner Services main job is as a Transfer Agent and Dividend Paying Agent. They work on behalf of a company (say Acme Inc.) to keep track of who the shareowners are, their job is to constantly update the official record of who owns how many Acme shares. (Also, obviously, they pay out dividends). You can see how they got involved: they are the ones who were able to \"\"rename\"\" your deceased relative's shares so they are now in your name, no one else can do that. Now, however, they don't have to keep your shares, you can transfer them elsewhere if you wish. You will have to legally prove your identity, which is not difficult to do in most cases (assuming you are in US, have a government issued ID and a bank account, and some time to do some paperwork).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34e6df966186974f602a13e3ae0d3721",
"text": "A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset. If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned. If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners. If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "bcd3b110442aaa733e8fad6a61bf2ad6",
"text": "You need to understand the business and the books as an owner do it for your parents also the manager could be the issue but it could a lot of things I’d like to see the quarterlies for the last 3 Years and a few other things like monthly statements payrolls some accounts etc... to do the math. it could be a partner? The only way to know this is to follow the paper trail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83",
"text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20118d2acc2ddab6bc7eba66d3175b22",
"text": "From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928598067c978d7ba6b404631e154c70",
"text": "The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33559cb95204fca917084c32f4a7cebd",
"text": "\"None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Sure it is, it's just not always obvious. When a company makes money it either: Other then the fourth option, the first three all increase the total value of the company. If you owned 1% of a company that was worth X, and is now worth X+1, the value of that 1% ownership should go up as well. One model of the value of a share of stock is the present value of all future cash flows that the company produces for its shareholders, which would be either through dividends, earnings (provided that they are invested back into the company) or through liquidation (sale). So as earnings increase (or more accurately as projected future earnings increase), so does the value of a share of the company. Also note that the payment of dividends causes the price of a stock to go down when the dividend is paid, since that's equity (cash) that's leaving the company, reducing the value of the company by an equivalent amount. Of course, there's also something to be said for the behavioral aspect of investing, meaning that people sometimes invest in companies that they like, and sell stock of companies that they don't like or disagree with (e.g. Nordstrom's).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be243534531945387a55667d9391d39",
"text": "\"As an owner of a share of a business you also \"\"own\"\" profits made by the business. But you delegate company management to reinvest those profits, on your behalf, to make even more profits. So your share of the business is a little money-making machine that should grow, without you having to pay taxes on the dividends and without you having to decide where to reinvest your share of the profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "837cbd14f721b7d3fbbde09e11bd72e8",
"text": "\"Profit sharing adds complexity. I'd pitch it as a percentage of revenue to him. \"\"Profit\"\" is a term than can be abused. Sales are sales. Somewhat related, if you're giving him 30% of all profit on all deals, you're basically selling 30% of your business for $80K. No surprise he's interested. Think more about how you'll finance working capital. You need money to buy the pool supplies, pay for labor, etc. Ideally, you should float as little of this money as you can. An incentive structure that rewards the salespeople should also be taken into consideration. Build that in somewhere. You want his reps to want to pitch your pools. They need some kind of incentive. These are just thoughts off the top of my head. I don't completely understand the details, but maybe it'll help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8678ed4f912e6edb926d4ad3c93d5ea7",
"text": "Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b32701eca361387d32f57d1bcda9f2b7",
"text": "I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aeb17bf4b73d0f13117216075ec7f99",
"text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55e504dd2b06ad669db1d5bbf87eb186",
"text": "\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12693d5ab42b95c35af04f25645e47be",
"text": "It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20328a7274b9f741cbf64695f0baee00",
"text": "This is going to be a philosophical answer, but here it goes. What is the purpose of an insurance? In my perspective, insurance is a way to protect yourself from risks in life you can not afford to take. Following this principle, most of the people do not have enough money to fix a Ferrari, or pay the medical expenses of a third party--so insurance against liabilities makes financial sense, but many can afford buying an equivalent car as they are insuring. If you have enough money to buy an equivalent car, you are paying for a risk you can take yourself. Then, instead of paying the comprehensive fee which is used to pay the different accidents, the company's administrative fees and the shareholder profits; I would save your money in a separate account and use it as a self-insurance. That is at least what I do. I even put other insurances and extended warranties, which respective risks I have decided to absorve; that way I diversify my fund.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
53b7b2b350c03755c79767c899a922a3
|
Is it worth it to buy TurboTax Premier over Deluxe if I sold investments in a taxable account?
|
[
{
"docid": "7cdea11b3ed2ca222ac4627bcd79e4bc",
"text": "For tax year 2014, TurboTax Deluxe no longer supports Schedule D.* TurboTax Premier is required if you need to use Schedule D. Alternatively, H&R Block Tax Software Deluxe will handle Schedule D at a fraction of the cost of TurboTax Premier. Update: Beginning with tax year 2015, TurboTax has reversed their disastrous decision and put the functionality back into Deluxe, making it once again an acceptable choice for the OP's situation. See this answer for more details. H&R Block Deluxe still handles this at less cost. * Technically**, TurboTax Deluxe does include Schedule D and other schedules in what they call form mode; however, if you decide to use them, TurboTax Deluxe cripples itself, eliminating many of the features on this chart that you may have gotten used to, such as interview guidance and e-file. ** See https://xkcd.com/1475/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e69ee98964f1df5d5bb017631a4b4bad",
"text": "Here are the lists for the tax forms that Deluxe and Premier include. I think you'll be fine with Deluxe because it sounds like all you need is the Schedule D/8949 forms. Deluxe actually includes most investment related forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10933bb99c626acdbfe828d99f8773ce",
"text": "I have found that using the online version can help determine the correct product. Try Deluxe online, you can upload the data from last year. When you get to the key forms see what happens if you don't switch. Then switch to Premiere. Compare the results.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7bac9cf0e5b85b734555a1a2147f61",
"text": "I have used turbo tax for years. Apart from the snafu in 2014, I have had no problem using deluxe, and I have lots of asset sales to report. I prefer form mode anyway. I can import the data from my broker, and I can e-file with no problem. So the only thing I'm missing is the support. I can usually find answers to questions on the web, anyway.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "407d5b6f33456c1d2b446b27364e5406",
"text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e35acc0e3a733ab09281a4287d51ee",
"text": "The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bfad5359f35fb1a83e975508f783e7a",
"text": "Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d97b61377d579ffc5a6e1e2422f53aa",
"text": "The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "892942a9820631aa86cbaf41f6fdac91",
"text": "Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e7755a6f32703383033991e87a91c23",
"text": "It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97910c0d3329b9a60f4607ab27d7c2a4",
"text": "You don't seem to have any particular question to be answered. Your understanding of RRSPs seems to be very good. Have you considered whether you might be better off putting your retirement savings into a TFSA instead? Both types can protect your growth from taxation (provided you reinvest the refund from the RRSP). The main way in which the RRSP is better than TFSA is that you can pay the tax on the contribution at a time when your income is lower, and thus have a lower marginal tax rate. Most people retire with a lower income than during their earning years, but it's a matter of tax brackets. If you think you'll be in the same bracket (same marginal tax rate) when you retire, then the TFSA and RRSP work out even in that regard. So in your case, the question you want to ask yourself is: when I retire, will I have an income (including CPP, OAS, pension payments, etc) that exceeds $45,282 worth of today's dollars? If so, your RRSP holds no advantage over the TFSA. In fact, the RRSP may even be worse, since the withdrawals count as income and reduce the amount of OAS and perhaps GIS payments that the government gives you - at least under current regulations. If you're unsure, I suggest you try this calculator from taxtips.ca that runs both scenarios and helps you see which one is more beneficial. It even factors in the OAS/GIS clawbacks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d25c6859e23e7eb52e67298252c4a3d5",
"text": "I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "401aa6880ed5e6426d31cb24de241bac",
"text": "\"Are you sure that TurboTax Deluxe won't be able to handle your capital gains? When TurboTax removed this functionality from their Deluxe product in 2015 (for tax year 2014), sales plummeted, and they realized that the enormous effective price increase was a colossal mistake. The following year, I understand that they put back all the functionality back into Deluxe, and as far as I know it is still there today. Deluxe should be able to handle capital gains and Schedule D. Premier offers additional guidance, but if you already know what you want to do, Deluxe should be able to handle everything. Full disclosure: I was one of the people angered by the TurboTax money grab. I returned my copy of TurboTax that year and purchased H&R Block software instead, which did everything that TurboTax used to do at a lower cost. I still use H&R Block software, and have no desire to go back to TurboTax. It wasn't simply \"\"marketing folk trying to differentiate the 3 (main) levels of product\"\" as @JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, it was the management trying to take advantage of their high market share by steeply raising the prices. They underestimated their customers. You mention not wanting to lose the value of the $30 you spent on a feature with TurboTax. I'm not sure which feature/add-on you are talking about, but does it make sense to overpay for something annually just to avoid losing $30 in the past?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01922e347ccbfd39856506f44be23d16",
"text": "With a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, timing is irrelevant with respect to taxes. So enjoy your vacation. When you get back, don't invest in one lump sum -- break up your purchases over a period of weeks if possible. If you are investing in ETFs for your index funds, many brokers have no transaction fee ETF options now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4eda5d941ef9f38511d2d191b1803f8",
"text": "Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caddb541d782824ef7cde986747e0d09",
"text": "\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29bf60f160cfd49e16556707172aba39",
"text": "\"Your premise is false. When you withdraw money from a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), there is no tax due. Yes, you can read that again: withdrawals from a TFSA are tax free. They are labeled \"\"tax free\"\" for a good reason! After-tax money is deposited, and then from that point forward, no tax, no tax, no tax. :-) On a \"\"normal\"\", non-registered investment or savings account with no special treatment, your investment earnings will be taxed whenever gains are realized or income received (e.g. dividends or interest). You will necessarily have less in a normal non-registered investment or savings account compared to a TFSA, as long as the rate of return was positive, i.e. growing. Perhaps you were thinking not of comparing a regular investment account to a TFSA, but rather to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)? In the case of an RRSP, there is an up-front tax deduction, then earnings grow tax-deferred, and then on withdrawal, income tax is paid at regular rates. Even then, with RRSPs, if your marginal tax rate remains the same over time (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but let's go with it) then you should still realize more after-tax income from your RRSP than from a normal non-registered investment or savings account. (Though, there's likely an exception case when most income came as qualified dividends and the capital itself hasn't appreciated.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a61613930e868764aa3b86c7be05e08c",
"text": "I agree that best is subjective and will not give investment advice. However, the tax deductible part can be dealt with quite swiftly. If you need tax deductibility right now, at the expense of later, put it into an RSP account. If you don't need tax deductibility right now, put it into a TFSA. Assuming you have room in either of these vehicles, I would suggest using just an RSP or TFSA cash savings account for now at ING Direct. Three reasons: You get the immediate benefit of having put it somewhere, and in the case of the RSP, an immediate tax deductibility. You don't have to worry about rushing into a specific investment and can give yourself time to figure out your goals and portfolio composition. (Read about the Couch Potato portfolio for a starting point.) You can transfer your money from them for free and still keep it registered in whichever plan it is in. The last point is the most important for my suggestion. The ability to quickly park the cash in a registered account and to move it for free using the appropriate form at a later date. Most places have a sneaky transfer-out fee. ING may not be the only place that doesn't, but I haven't looked into many other places about this. You might find something else that works the same way. And please, don't ever use GIC and high return in the same sentence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba04448badcb9bc41ad6831c7f60a19d",
"text": "I agree with mhoran_psprep's answer, but would like to add a few additional points to consider. TurboTax and the professional it will send to represent you in case of a tax audit have no more information about your tax return than what you entered into the program. Now, there are three (or four) different kinds of audits. The correspondence audit is the most common kind where IRS sends a letter requesting copies of documents supporting a deduction or tax credit that you have claimed. Representation is hardly necessary in this case. The office audit is more serious where you have to make an appointment and go to the local IRS office with paperwork that the examining agent needs to see physically, and to answer questions, etc. It would be better to be accompanied by a representative at these meetings. But, office audits are not as common as correspondence audits, and, because they are expensive for the IRS, usually occur when the IRS is fairly sure of recovering a substantial sum of money. If you have been cutting corners and pushing the envelope in taking large enough deductions to make it worthwhile for the IRS to go after you, you probably should not have been using TurboTax to file your income tax return but should have been using an accountant or tax preparer, who would be representing you in case of an audit. If the reason that you used TurboTax is that no accountant was willing to prepare a tax return with the deductions that you wished to claim, I doubt that having TurboTax's representative with you when you go to the IRS office will help you all that much. An example of a field audit is when the IRS agent comes to your home to see if you actually have a space set aside to use exclusively as your home office as you claimed you did etc. A Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) audit is where the IRS randomly chooses returns for statistical checks that taxpayers are complying with the regulations. The taxpayer has to prove every line of the return. You claim to be filing as Married Filing Jointly? Bring in your marriage certificate. Submit birth certificates and Social Security cards of your dependent children. And so on. Yes, having TurboTax represent you for only $49.95 will help, but not if you are not married and cannot provide the IRS with a marriage certificate etc. So, pay the fee for peace of mind if you like, and as insurance as littleadv suggests. But be sure you understand what you might be getting for the money. Most tax returns selected for audit are selected for what the IRS believes are good reasons, not at random. If what you said If my tax return is randomly selected for audit they will represent me. is interpreted literally, TurboTax will represent you only if your return is selected for examination under the TCMP program, not if it is selected for audit because the IRS believes that something is fishy about your return. And as always, you get what you pay for.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f156ff2476b28163f1e0bb62a647164a
|
How does an enlarged share base affect share price?
|
[
{
"docid": "04d97ff77a153c1e771486cd85801577",
"text": "Most of the time when a stock splits to create more shares, it is done to bring the price per share down to a level that makes potential investors more comfortable. There are psychological reasons why some companies keep the price in the $30 to $60 range. Others like to have the price keep rising into the hundreds or thousands a share. The split doesn't help current investors, with the possible exception that the news spurs interest in the stock which leads to a short term rise in prices; but it also doesn't hurt current investors. When a reverse stock split is done, the purpose is for one of several reasons:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e4095d42a193b554e513a451e5dc91b",
"text": "The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "988f4fdae97c5b24d1cf1782f317b3d1",
"text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e861e14d3c7e57344f7ab5c34eb4a717",
"text": "There has been a lot of research on the effects of stock splits. Some studies have concluded that: However note that (i) these are averages over large samples and does not say it will work on every split and (ii) most of the research is a bit dated and more recent papers have often struggled to find any significant performance impact after 1990, possibly because the effect has been well documented and the arbitrage no longer exists. This document summarises the existing research on the subject although it seems to miss some of the more recent papers. More practically, if you pay a commission per share, you will pay more commissions after the split than before. Bottom line: don't overthink it and focus on other criteria to decide when/whether to invest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302c61b590ca3faf629e6dea9041552a",
"text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e4603c713071cd9e01609a98732949",
"text": "Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "148d952b8d3badb1b92867d36058ebf6",
"text": "Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b",
"text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b1ea9120af491bb5ea89dbba820eb4",
"text": "\"Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post. But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found \"\"a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b89079c7fbc1cf5425bddf6210cabc",
"text": "It means $400m expected revenue, likely spread out over multiple years as it gets implemented, and not entirely guaranteed to happen as they still need to fulfill the contract. The impact on the stock price is complex - it should be positive, but nowhere close to a $400m increase in market cap. If the company is expected to routinely win such contracts, it may have no significant effect on the stock price, as it's already priced in - say, if analysts expect the company to win 1.2b contracts in this fiscal year, and now they've done 1/3 of that, as expected.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dc79b3de3b14ea3a532ab4c581eab0e",
"text": "How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7f2f5a0598d83458ee9ca91a1201849",
"text": "Yes, it does matter. You are right that lower demand for a stock will drive its price down. Lower stock prices can hurt the company. Take a look at Fixee's answer to this question: a declining share price will make it hard to secure credit, attract further investors, build partnerships, etc. Also, employees are often holding options or in a stock purchase plan, so a declining share price can severely dampen morale. In an extreme case, if share prices plummet too far, the company can be pressured to reverse-split the shares, and (eventually) take the company private. This recently happened to Playboy. If you do not want to support a company, for whatever reason, then it is wise to avoid their stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f80e0f2e047fe9bbcdf8b5f25628172f",
"text": "Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors. So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market. With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "076ed20173f85274209c411312206559",
"text": "\"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers. When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again. When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again. So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another). What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by \"\"market sentiment\"\" and speculation. People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company. So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly. The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't. Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down. All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market. Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes. In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as \"\"good\"\" as it's ever been. Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have. By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4603a9d130e55a92bbe6c6147cc416",
"text": "More shares mean less volatility because it takes a larger number of trades, a larger number of shares per trade, or a combination of both to raise or lower the stock price. Institutional investors (mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, other investment firms, etc) are the sorts of organizations with the large amounts of money needed to move a stock price one way or the other. But the more floating shares there are in a company, the harder it is for one or two firms to move a stock price. A company with fewer floating shares wouldn't require as many trades (or as many shares per trade) to see wider swings in price. When it comes to stock price, insider trading isn't the same as manipulation. In the (surprisingly few) cases of insider trading that are prosecuted, it tends to be an individual (or small group) with early access to information that the broader market doesn't have being able to buy or sell ahead of the broader market. Their individual sales are seldom if ever enough to noticeably move a stock price. They're locking in profit or limiting a loss. Manipulation might (but doesn't always) precede insider trading, if misinformation (or truth) is released for the purpose of creating a situation that can be profited from via a trade or trades.",
"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
|
abd4cb2b89961cf6b548d67c03a861c1
|
Why adjust for inflation annually, as opposed to realising it after the holding period?
|
[
{
"docid": "3bfae4ee3ce21e5318f8c77e2a1927e1",
"text": "I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c0bac9a98e7ae3f01a8f47c2fd878128",
"text": "\"Krugman argues (and I agree with him on this one) that this is a telltale sign that the US is in a [liquidity trap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap). Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out. In this scenario, the government \"\"printing\"\" money has no effect on inflation (or much of anything) because it just sits in bank reserves. A more right wing economist might spin a different story though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c19193e24bda7e5901b24d261c9f47e6",
"text": "What is much more likely is immediate or close to immediate investment. but this is exactly my point of contention with how they do things. I know for a fact that the money is immediately invested, which is why i find it wrong that interest for money collected in a given financial year is announced after the end of the next financial year. i was wondering if this was a common practice in other countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "931efdb6af74a7feffd7a87fd30575f2",
"text": "Inflation is not applicable in the said example. You are better off paying 300 every month as the balance when invested will return you income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69ac9022804733592e6acd79726b8624",
"text": "You are losing something - interest on your deposit. That money you are giving to the bank is not earning interest so you are losing money considering inflation is eating into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4694b1a2b6366c8246417079ec2e9f",
"text": "\"Let's say there's a product worth $10 in July and the inflation rate in August is 10%. Will it then cost $11 in August? Yes. That's basically what inflation means. However. The \"\"monthly\"\" inflation numbers you typically see are generally a year over year inflation rate on that month. Meaning August 2017 inflation is 10% that means inflation was 10% since last July 2016, not since July 2017. At the micro consumer level, inflation is very very very vague. Some sectors of the economy will inflate faster than the general inflation rate, others will be slower or even deflate. Sometimes a price increase comes with a value increase so it's not really inflation. And lastly, month over month inflation isn't something you will feel. Inflation is measured on the whole economy, but actual prices move in steps. A pear today might cost $1, and a pear in five years might cost $1.10. That's 10% over 5 years or about 2% per year but the actual price change might have been as abrupt as yesterday a pear was $1 and now it's $1.10. All of the prices of pears over all of the country won't be the same. Inflation is a measure of everything in the economy roughly blended together to come up with a general value for the loss in purchasing power of a currency and is applicable over long periods. A USD inflation rate of 3% does not mean the pear you spent $1 on today will necessarily cost $1.03 next year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685969de8f725ad8bdedd6839e4ee42c",
"text": "The general discussion of inflation centers on money as a medium of exchange and a store of value. It is impossible to discuss inflation without considering time, since it is a comparison between the balance between money and goods at two points in time. The whole point of using money, rather than bartering goods, is to have a medium of exchange. Having money, you are interested in the buying power of the money in general more than the relative price of a specific commodity. If some supply distortion causes a shortage of tobacco, or gasoline, or rental properties, the price of each will go up. However, if the amount of circulating money is doubled, the price of everything will be bid up because there is more money chasing the same amount of wealth. The persons who get to introduce the additional circulating money will win at the expense of those who already hold cash. Most of the public measures that are used to describe the economy are highly suspect. For example, during the 90s, the federal government ceased using a constant market basket when computing CPI, allowing substitutions. With this, it was no longer possible to make consistent comparisons over time. The so-called Core CPI is even worse, as it excludes food and energy, which is fine provided you don't eat anything or use any energy. Therefore, when discussing CPI, it is important to understand what exactly is being measured and how. Most published statistics understate inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a39d869d535ae5426b2772847469f00",
"text": "Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods. If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money. In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years. This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day. If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now. Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation. Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf90b0dcaa1f707395818029b671ef11",
"text": "\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1688c0affff288ef6402d045731b746",
"text": "The answer would depend on the equities held. Some can weather inflation better than others (such as companies that have solid dividend growth) and even outpace inflation. Some industries are also safer against inflation than others, such as consumer staples and utilities since people usually have to purchase these regardless of how much $ they have. In looking over the data comparing S&P 500 returns, dividends, and inflation, the results are all over the map. In the 50's the total return was 19.3% with inflation at 2.2%. Then in the 70's returns were 5.8% with inflation at 7.4 percent, leading one to think that inflation diminished returns. But then in the 80's inflation was 5.1%, yet the return on the S&P was up to 17.3% Either way, aside from the 70's every other decade since 1950 has outpaced inflation (as long as you are including dividends; hence my first paragraph). S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns Also, the 7% average stock appreciation you mention is just that, an average. You are comparing a year-over-year number (7% inflation) with an aggregated one (stock performance over x number of years) and that is a misrepresentation and is not being weighted for the difference in what those numbers mean. Finally, there are thousands of things that have an effect on the stock market and stocks. Some are controllable and others are not. The idea that any one of them, such as inflation, has any sort of long-term, everlasting effect on prices that they cannot outmaneuver is improbable. This is where researching your stocks comes in...and if done prudently, who cares what the inflation rate is?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eb94df80246aae2b4d230cca77cd1f7",
"text": "It is supported by inflation and historical values. if you look at real estate as well as the stock market they have consistently increased over a long period of history even with short term drops. It is also based on inflation and the fact that the price of land and building material has increased over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72cd18a6de1e80e2251a563f6319b2c6",
"text": "I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbdff4b74a172dce539bd323e632508",
"text": "\"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue. Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow. \"\"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush\"\" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later. Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now. The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever). So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year. For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80). Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term. But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ddcd2bb7d01b9ae2744c9547cfa41c",
"text": "\"The public doesn't really need to \"\"notice\"\" for inflation to take effect. Inflation happens there's more money relative to things to buy. Most people think that if say we increase the money supply by 2x, everything should get more expensive. But it matters \"\"where\"\" the increase in money supply is and to \"\"whom\"\" is receiving it. For example, the liquid money supply for US$ increased almost 4 times from 2009 to 2017 via quantitative easing, where the central bank purchased not just short term treasuries, but also longer term bonds. You would think that having 4x the amount of US$ circulating would lead to a lot of inflation on consumer prices. For every $1 that was floating around in 2009, we now have $4, so people should be willing to pay more for a given good, increasing its price. However, the \"\"new\"\" money has been primarily used to purchase assets, and drive up their prices. It has not really found its way to into worker pay (or to the general public), as median income for workers has stayed relatively flat in that time frame. So it can be argued that the \"\"asset\"\" markets are feeling the effects of \"\"inflation\"\" from the increased money supply. Where real estate prices, public stock prices, venture capital investments, etc. have all seen a large increase in their costs to acquire relative to the same asset and opportunity. These assets are acting like a \"\"sponge\"\" for the \"\"new money\"\" that prevents the effects of its inflationary properties from exiting out into the consumer economy. That is also why central banks across the globe are in a predicament in how to \"\"stop\"\" quantitative easing. If they were to shrink the money supply, the inflationary pressures on assets would go down because there's not enough new money to keep raising their prices. Doing it the wrong way would cause housing, stocks, and investment markets to stop growing, because there wouldn't be as much \"\"new money\"\" creating demand for those assets. The best way I can illustrate this is with an example: Say you have an economy that consists of an \"\"Orange Tree\"\" that produces 10 oranges per year. There are 10 people in this economy that each want 1 orange per year. And there is a circulating money supply of $10. The owner of the Orange Tree hires all 10 people to pick 1 orange for him, and pays them $1 to pick. In this scenario, each person picks 1 orange and gives it to the owner. They then receive $1. They then turn around and purchase one of the oranges from the owner of the tree. Because demand is 10 oranges, and supply is 10 oranges, and the money supply is $10, each orange is priced at $1 and everyone is happy. Now let's say the central bank \"\"prints\"\" $100 more dollars. If the central bank gave it to the \"\"people\"\" evenly, each person would end up with $11. Now we have 10 people that want 10 oranges and each have $11. So, the price for the oranges would \"\"inflate\"\" to $11 per orange. Now let's say instead of giving the extra $100 to the \"\"people,\"\" the central bank instead gives it to the \"\"orange tree owner.\"\" The owner can still pick his 10 oranges with the 10 people (the labor force), and can still charge $1 per orange. As long as oranges are still $1, he doesn't really need to increase the \"\"wages\"\" of the orange pickers. So, instead, he invests the $50 into building a bigger house for himself, and then puts the remaining $50 into developing an \"\"orange picking machine.\"\" The supply of oranges is the same, the demand for oranges is the same, and the supply of money that demands oranges is the same, so each orange will continue to be priced at $1. In this scenario, the supply of money increased by 10x, but the prices of oranges did not inflate. This is because the new money went into assets, not consumer demand. Now play this scenario forward a few years. The orange tree owner now has a machine that picks oranges, so he stops hiring people to pick oranges. Now he has a new house and all the oranges he can eat. Now let's say this economy was replicated 100 times, but here are only 20 houses. So there are 100 \"\"orange tree owners\"\" and 1,000 people that get paid to pick oranges and are willing to pay to consume oranges. The central bank hands $100 to each of the 100 orange tree owners. In this case, some of the Orange Tree owners will bid up the price of the houses from $50 to $100. The other Orange Tree Owners may invest in bigger and better \"\"Orange Tree Picking\"\" machines. That automation will lower the cost to pick oranges, and increase profits if prices stay the same. Eventually, those owners will be able to bid more than $100 for one of the 20 houses. As this plays out, the price of a house will continue to increase until all orange picking is automated, but no one can afford oranges because they are not needed to pick them anymore. This is a simplified version of what's basically happening on a global scale.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "a747f397b3e354d4128fc189b485e4c1",
"text": "First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price. The amount of goods & services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply. Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time. Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out. Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
16104d9b1715f90aff28a2c9c39e7ae4
|
Does “cash in lieu of dividend” incur any tax consequences in an IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "f55e8b5dd4f124ff76f3380c6fd54f32",
"text": "In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends. It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "14d46b44a67ce3e321774973b2a70e32",
"text": "\"People often have the wrong idea about how taxes apply to their money. There's not really any such thing as \"\"pre-tax\"\" or \"\"post-tax\"\" income, only pre-tax and post-tax **uses** of your income. This is somewhat hidden by the fact that we pay income tax based on our income for the year; but if you look a bit closer, you'll notice that come April 15th, (almost) every dollar you get to *subtract* from your gross income isn't defined by where it comes from, but rather, where it *went* (there are a few special cases there, like qualified dividends, that that's an entirely different issue). Perhaps the most clear example of this is a traditional IRA that you self-fund from your savings account on April 14th, for the prior tax year - You're putting dollars you've already taken home, into a pre-tax account, *after* the end of the calendar tax-year; and yet it all works out exactly the same (tax-liability wise - There's certainly an opportunity cost there) as if you had contributed those dollars via a weekly payroll deduction. So when you manually fund a Roth IRA, it has *no* effect on your tax liability (except insofar as you *don't* get to deduct it from your taxable income, which you wouldn't if you had left it in a savings account, etiher). In the year you earned that money, you paid taxes on it; when you take it out, you won't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9a13eafa539adbdea693bbcacd97c4",
"text": "Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a55bf800e3b8318039ed73b974c6f75",
"text": "Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df03a8b6861b60c9fddf22efc80b1914",
"text": "The Brokerage firm will purchase shares for the dividend paid in a omnibus account for the security of the issuer and then they will distribute fractional shares among all their clients that chose Div Reinvest. They will only have to buy 1 extra share to account for the fractional portion of what they allocate. The structure of the market does not permit trading of fractional shares. There is generally not any impact to the market place for Div Reinvest with the exception of certain securities that pay large dividends that are not liquid. sometimes this occurs in preferred securities where a large amount of Div reinvestment could create a large market order that has market impact. Most brokers place market orders for the opening on the day following the payment of the dividend. When you sell the fractional portion same process as full shares are sold into the market and the fractional if traded between you and the brokers omnibus account. if it creates a full share for the broker (omnibus has .6 shares and you sell him .5 they would likely flip that out to the street with the full share portion of your order. This would not have impact to outstanding shares and all cost are operational and with the broker handling the Div reinvestment service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e5b9e49484430b95a39bcec5e0b2494",
"text": "There are no immediate tax-related benefits to putting money into a Roth IRA. You are investing after-tax money in the hope that the rules won't change and you'll be able to take out the money tax-free when you retire. Under current rules, you can take out your contributions at any time without penalties or taxes. You can't take out earnings without penalties until you retire. You said you don't have any debt (great!). So if you have cash that you don't have other uses for, and you don't mind possibly tying it up for a long time, you can put money into a Roth IRA. I'd argue that if you have, say, $25-50/month to put into long term savings, it's a good habit to start. When you move into a job that gives you more disposable income, you can increase this amount. The earlier you start, the lower the monthly amount you'll need to contribute towards a comfortable retirement. Once you get started putting a little bit away, you'll never miss it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c9eee7ddb2b677c51d0b55c42a95900",
"text": "\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49f9299d2fe5b69530f968de19e39bf3",
"text": "\"You withdrew the 'cash' portion, and will pay tax on it. How was the check \"\"another for move remaining to B\"\" issued? Was it payable to you? If so, it's too late, it's your money and the whole account was cashed out. If it was payable to B, you should have had it sent directly to their custodian, are you saying you still have that check? You might need to ask A to reissue the check to you, since you are no longer in the US. I'm not sure if you can roll it to an IRA at this point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b673df4129fb2dab004b655c4a601aa",
"text": "No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "917d06f07b6ae6cb031bcbaebc4fe133",
"text": "\"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1d3611099cbee3136ec36c06127dd7",
"text": "Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af163056cc5badfd493698d5f2da9724",
"text": "The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a0abff4a29bb7980683feabb76108a1",
"text": "\"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75d0c393b45269d50467fdf86f727428",
"text": "\"The answer to your first question is true. No tax on withdrawls. Under these circumstances, the withdrawl is \"\"qualified\"\". To your second question, as long as the withdrawl is qualified, it is not taxed, regardless of your additional income. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/03/030403.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical has a very comprehensive, plain English, description of the IRS rules (as of today, anyway).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1494bec7d05f08e8eb2b1f30184a73f8",
"text": "I am not a lawyer but I do not see a legal problem here. However, if the puts in the Roth IRA are not purchased at fair market value that could be a problem. For example, if your traditional IRA sold puts to the Roth IRA below fair market value that would not be allowed. However, from your post, it appears that you will be buying the puts from a third party so that will not be an issue. There is something else that just cross my mind. Imagine that you own 100 shares of the XYZ stock in your traditional IRA and 100 shares of the XYZ stock outside of an IRA. Now, you buy a put on the XYZ stock inside your Roth IRA. Are the dividends on the XYZ stock still qualified? I do not know but my guess is the answer is no.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5924e2b6bf5ea265b7048bd0454db5",
"text": "\"If a company earns $1 Million in net profit (let's say all cash, which is not entirely realistic), it can do one of three things with it: On the balance sheet - profits that have not been distributed show up as \"\"retained earnings\"\". When dividends are paid, Retained Earnings and cash are reduced. None of the other options change the fact that it is still \"\"profit\"\" - they all just affect the balance sheet, not the income statement: Note that when a company issues dividends, it reduces its per-share value since cash is leaving the door with nothing in return. In Apple's case, since a significant amount of its profit was earned in other countries (where it was not taxed by the US), it would pay a significant amount in US corporate tax by bringing it back to the US by investing it or paying dividends. They are betting that at some point, the US will change the rules to make it more favorable to \"\"repatriate\"\" the money and reduce their tax significantly.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ffc9497cd91212916f62973d83ac743b
|
Why would I vote for an increase in the number of authorized shares?
|
[
{
"docid": "b150e9c76963f936b4a6cfa0b2a5ae48",
"text": "\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21cde3ca58c14ecb3a5a72268b570a7b",
"text": "Why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares? Because you trust management to use those shares wisely. What it comes down to is, management is asking for money. While it may not be cash they're asking for, it has the same effect. Before you approve this, you have to evaluate the request (similarly to how a bank would evaluate a loan request), and ask if you approve of their reasons for needing the money, and if you think that it will be used to increase the value of the company (making your shares more valuable in the process).",
"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": "9abfc64181ca579f248d202f1c5b5194",
"text": "Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.",
"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": "d1a7b146aee22e84eaa261388f7d56b0",
"text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "cee5b473a5787ba655090a61d7f23e5f",
"text": "Many brokerages offer automatic dividend reinvestment. It is very infrequent that these dividends are exactly a whole share. So, if you have signed up for automatic dividend reinvestment, many brokerages will reinvest your dividends and assign to you a fractional share. I can't speak for how these shares work with regards to voting, but I can say that the value of these fractional holdings does change with stock price as if one genuinely could hold a fraction of a share.",
"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": "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": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf",
"text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "518b52c68869a5db8e185a64c74529c7",
"text": "\"The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly \"\"private equity\"\" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of \"\"leveraging up\"\" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc59461adf247c800ede67afc91e7d2e",
"text": "I would prefer a dividend paying company, rather than share appreciation. And I would prefer that the dividends increase over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c25d65baeec106f62772fba042ed6bd",
"text": "Generally speaking, having more institutional investors is a good sign. Of course there are many types of institutions. Normally we are thinking of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds. They may not all have the same implications. Hedge funds, in particular, are out to make a buck with very little restriction on how they do it. They may buy an undervalued stock and then use their voting power to improve the company or they may do something more questionable, like pump up the stock price and then sell at the high, causing volatility. The people you are referring to may be thinking of something like the latter. Those concerns are generally small when compared with the known positives of institutional ownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8b5c6c2466ff3fa1b44e11fd7d270ef",
"text": "No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e4603c713071cd9e01609a98732949",
"text": "Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c14f837a6d7aad43dc7b10f01483d6cb",
"text": "To quote Adam Smith, 'Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it'. In this case, that means, the value of a stock is equal to the price that someone will pay for it. If you buy shares in a company, the number of people who want shares in that company has just gone up by 1. If you buy shares in companies profiting from the DAPL, you are increasing demand for those shares. You are actually making those shares more valuable, not less. If you bought all those shares, then you could simply shut the pipeline down. But that means you'd be spending billions of dollars to do so - and that money would go to the people who own the company now. The concept of 'Shareholder Activism' that you refer to, is actually more that an individual who owns a substantial number of shares (usually in the 10% ballpark) will become outspoken on the direction of the company, and attempt to elect board members who will take action to suit their liking. This is done to increase the profits of the company, so that the shareholder can make more money off of their investment. It is very expensive, and not generally done for reasons of 'ethics', unless those ethics align with a view to long-term profit (in this case, you'd need at least $1Billion to buy enough of a stake in the DAPL to make a difference). What you may instead want to consider is 'ethical investing'. This refers to the concept that you should only put your investments in companies which act ethically. For example, you could buy shares in a solar company, if you felt that was an ethical industry. In this way, you drive up demand for those types of companies, and reward the business owners who act in that fashion.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f61ea137361259b11e6482904c4b15ba
|
Evaluating worth of ESPP (Startup)
|
[
{
"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": "0c8f913a856ac688cfd1708acb1be602",
"text": "I have a hard time giving them a P/E higher than 25 on the absolute top end. Given current numbers, that takes another ~60% off their share price putting them right around $10. Now... that's my top end estimate, I'd probably be willing to buy right around $8. In order to support the IPO price, the models I've seen come in at projecting an average growth rate of 40% YoY for the next 5 years. If FB pulled that off, they'd be growing ~5X over the next 5 years (once compounded). As it stands, they've got 900B+ users. Doubling that would require a significant number of new people to start coming on line - 5x that would be impossible. So... next option... They figure out how to monetize existing users/traffic better. It's possible - they don't do a very good job with this as it stands, but they've got a fine line to walk. They need to pull it off without driving users, or advertisers, away. Suppose they were able to double their user base. They'd still need to do ~2.5x better per user to make the numbers. This doesn't take into account that the next billion users are significantly less valuable as an audience than the first billion. (Not in human terms, but in financial/marketing terms.) I'm willing to give them a 20% growth rate for the next 5 years. That'd put them at a bit better than 2.5x over that time. It's still a stretch. That should put them in the same P/E range as GOOG (currently trading at a P/E of 17ish). Any price higher than $10/share at this point is gambling on their ability to crack monetization. The higher you go, the higher you think the odds are. One last thing I'd keep in mind. Most of the early employees with options are locked out of selling for the first 6 months after the IPO. There's a fairly large number of shares that will become available when that time is up. I'm curious to see how many of the early employees call in rich and go start new companies. (Think about what happened to paypal after being sold to ebay - yelp, youtube, and others all came out of the early employees.) I'd be watching the quarterly reports through the quarter ending 12/31. The numbers at that point will give a better gauge of a proper valuation. I absolutely wouldn't hold shares of FB during the period when employees first have their chance to cash their lottery tickets.",
"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": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a",
"text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8",
"text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6415381eba61027f7d98941ad81ef79",
"text": "Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346",
"text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ffa49547ede3ac0898ebc62bf9ffbc6",
"text": "Yep, a lot of startup funding these days is called equity, which makes for nice valuation, but there are often so many extra stipulations (I've even read of caps on upside; wish I could find the Matt Levine column on it now) that it really is effectively debt.",
"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": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5",
"text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbe2602216d25f7f2f97e3625c46ea0b",
"text": "\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "876a9afbec24369bf05e5fbbf8a0ed8f",
"text": "I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40d3eb1c81f085cd157f373631b1f4c2",
"text": "\"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa",
"text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "514a395c4d97f5947bd3de87e72b0662",
"text": "Usually the amount of the ESPP stocks is very small compared to the overall volume of the trading, so it shouldn't matter. But check if for your company it not so (look at the stock history for the previous ESPP dates, and volumes).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7dfd9b2ec753508528b1aaef2fd264c5
|
Dollar-cost averaging: How often should one use it? What criteria to use when choosing stocks to apply it to?
|
[
{
"docid": "62abb3bb00c6b735d7180702956ddb3c",
"text": "\"Why do people keep talking about 401K's at work? That is NOT dollar cost averaging. DCA refers to when you have a large sum of money. Do you invest it all at once or spread it out over several smaller purchases over a period of time? There really isn't a \"\"when\"\" should I use it. It is simply a matter of where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. DCA has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a tradeoff. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5800de4dbaf9f112a91a9532ed49279b",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d819ec9577a248f9bd639cd5dfe85e",
"text": "\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19aa9c19267c1a995f6a6466b63680aa",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.",
"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": "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": "5d7736255f034e29a930b7eab8d3047c",
"text": "\"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6d317e89ec1170e735acd3e5886923",
"text": "\"Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world. Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners. Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday. I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX). I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle. By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs. It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique. If they all called dollar cost averaging, \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" none of them would appear to be unique. So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea. Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aeeee908b0718dd8905df1decf1431b",
"text": "You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d48668c03c328eebe5c349e9895587fc",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "234d69bfb72ed4adf33d3eb4134b168c",
"text": "\"Ryan's suggestion to index for your main strategy is dead on. Your risk is highest with one given stock, and decreases as you diversify. Yet, picking the stocks one at a time is an effort, when done right, it's time consuming. For what one can say about Jim \"\"mad money\"\" Cramer, his advice to spend an hour a month studying each stock you own, is pretty decent advice. Penny stocks are sub one dollar priced, typically small companies which in theory can grow to be large companies, but the available information tends to be tougher to get hold of. Options are a discussion for a different thread, I discussed the covered call strategy elsewhere and show that options are not necessarily high risk, it depends how they are used.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081512f0aaafbef6ec324b5e271c4821",
"text": "\"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". DCF is very well suited to stock analysis. One doesn't need to know, or forecast the future stock price to use it. In fact, it's the opposite. Business fundamentals are forecasted to estimate the sum total of future cash flows from the company, discounted back to the present. Divide that by shares outstanding, and you have the value of the stock. The key is to remember that DCF calculations are very sensitive to inputs. Be conservative in your estimates of future revenue growth, earnings margins, and capital investment. I usually develop three forecasts: pessimistic, neutral, optimistic. This delivers a range of value instead of a false-precision single number. This may seem odd: I find the DCF invaluable, but for the process, not so much the result. The input sensitivity requires careful work, and while a range of value is useful, the real benefit comes from being required to answer the questions to build the forecast. It provides a framework to analyze a business. You're just trying to properly fill in the boxes, estimate the unguessable. To do so, you pore through the financials. Skimming, reading with a purpose. In the end you come away with a fairly deep understanding of the business, how they make money, why they'll continue to make money, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3293e141c7f31eef2fd7569dc3de00c7",
"text": "\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b505f32724b6c6439754066ecf6fba7c",
"text": "Edit3: Regarding the usefulness of the bare number itself, it is not useful unless, for example, an employer uses that average in the computation of how many options the employer grants to the employee as part of the compensation paid. One of my employers used just such an average. What is far more common is to use two or more moving averages, of different periods, plotted on a chart. My original response continues below... Assuming there are 252 trading days a year, the following chart does what you have done but with a moving average: AAPL on Stockcharts.com Edit: BTW, I looked up the number of Federal holidays, there are 9. The average year has 365.2422 days. 365.2422 × 5/7 = 260.8873. Subtract 9 and you get 251.8873 trading days in the average year. So 252 is a better number for the SMA than 250 if you want to average a year. Edit2: Here is the same chart with more than one average included: AAPL chart w/indicators",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019",
"text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "818f4cb44f509dfe75279353ce92a310",
"text": "In general, lump sum investing will tend to outperform dollar cost averaging because markets tend to increase in value, so investing more money earlier will generally be a better strategy. The advantage of dollar cost averaging is that it protects you in times when markets are overvalued, or prior to market corrections. As an extreme example, if you done a lump-sum investment in late 2008 and then suffered through the subsequent market crash, it may have taken you 2-3 years to get back to even. If you began a dollar cost averaging investment plan in late 2008, it may have only taken you a 6 months to get back to even. Dollar cost averaging can also help to reduce the urge to time the market, which for most investors is definitely a good thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23e3365d2baf8d026f99b1755e53154",
"text": "\"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5302883e4ef2d58442e748de9792466f",
"text": "Since I am no longer a minor, can I start contributing to this account right away and claim tax relief for my contributions? Yes Do I need to submit some paperwork to the bank Not to my knowledge. Best check with Bank. What will be the features of such a PPF account with respect to maturity, withdrawals, interest, tax on interest, etc. No difference. i.e. the Account would continue, as it was opened 10 years back, it would mature in another 5 years. You can extend this by a block of 5 years as long as required. The withdrawals are tax free in your hands including interest.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
918dff6a322a624c76933edec06e03b1
|
40 year old A and J makes 1M a year. What is the best investment to save on tax?
|
[
{
"docid": "723b27f016355e96d8163e8dacd36331",
"text": "\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9ea76cb35e09336fff8dc63f70321ead",
"text": "That 2t is if you invest the money for a decade before cutting checks, which is the methodology with which I mentioned I disagree. From the article: > After spending a little quality time in Microsoft Excel, I’d say it’s somewhere the ballpark of $1,350 per household, or $1,000 per worker.* If you divide $1000 per worker by ten years, you get $100 per year, which is what I said and which the title mislabeled. Edit: I see what you mean, I typed households instead of workers. Thanks for pointing out my typo, I edited the comment to correct and show I misspoke originally. Also I put 200b instead of 2t. Either way, the point is it is $100 per year, not $1000. I should’ve paid attention when commenting, but the point remains valid",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4f272cbcf780e50d86fda8794acb691",
"text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ec31ff25a842884336420f39e6b4a99",
"text": "I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1286da8a6b6708506c4ec2759ac83219",
"text": "\"While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it. I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits? I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price. If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable. The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable. If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called \"\"stocks\"\" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase \"\"bonds\"\", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market. If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks. The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70",
"text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc2aa4d3688ac396c2defe618e2c11a",
"text": "Your main choices are ISAs and property. You can put over £15,000 per year into an ISA, which means over £450,000 by the time you retire, not allowing for growth in your ISA investments. But if you're paying rent, and worried about being able to pay rent when you retire, the obvious choice is to buy a flat now on a thirty-year mortgage so that you can stop paying rent and the mortgage will be paid off by the time you retire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbe1f56847fc4a43242381d1d2bcfc43",
"text": "\"Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with your options for your pension fund. They changed as of 6th April 2015 so it's all quite new. The Government's guidance on it is here. If you haven't already taken a tax-free lump sum from your pension fund, you can take up to 25% totally tax free immediately. That makes getting a house for 40K very accessible. Beyond the 25%, you can take any of it out whenever you want (\"\"flexi-access drawdown\"\" or \"\"lump sum payment\"\", depending on whether you take the 25% out up front or not). That'll be taxed, as if you earned it as income. So if you didn't have any other income, you can take another £10600 without tax this tax year, and then another £10600 or whatever the allowance goes up to next tax year, and so on. Above that you'd have to pay 20% tax until you reach the higher-rate tax threshold at about £40K/year. You say you do have other income so you'll have to take that into account as well when calculating what tax you'd have to pay. If you've reached state pension age that will add some more income, of course. Or, as you suggest, you can buy an annuity. You can do that with some or all of the money, and you can still take the 25% tax-free first. If you do buy an annuity the income from it will all be taxed, but again your personal allowance will apply. Essentially an annuity is the least risky option, particularly if you get one that is uprated with inflation. Uprating with inflation makes the initial income even lower but protects you against cost of living rises as you get older. In exchange for avoiding that risk, you probably lose out on average compared to some more risky options. You might choose to get an annuity large enough to cover your basic needs and take more chances with the rest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e072d360a7c83613e174f8ea6d56d93",
"text": "A Junior ISA might be one option if you are eligible do you have a CTF? (child trust fund) though the rules are changing shortly to allow those with CTF's to move to a junior ISA. JISA are yielding about 3.5% at the moment Or as you are so young you could invest in one or two of the big Generalist Investment trusts (Wittan, Lowland) - you might need an adult open this and it would be held via a trust for you. Or thinking really far ahead you could start a pension with say 50% of the lumpsum",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53f7aa9e406ea773a4b45621660c971",
"text": "Your first home can be up to £450,000 today. But that figure is unlikely to stay the same over 40 years. The government would need to raise it in line with inflation otherwise in 40 years you won't be able to buy quite so much with it. If inflation averages 2% over your 40 year investment period say, £450,000 would buy you roughly what £200,000 would today. Higher rates of inflation will reduce your purchasing power even faster. You pay stamp duty on a house. For a house worth £450,000 that would be around £12,500. There are also estate agent's fees (typically 1-2% of the purchase price, although you might be able to do better) and legal fees. If you sell quickly you'd only be able to access the balance of the money less all those taxes and fees. That's quite a bit of your bonus lost so why did you tie your money up in a LISA for all those years instead of investing in the stock market directly? One other thing to note is that you buy a LISA from your post tax income. You pay into a pension using your pre-tax income so if you're investing for your retirement then a pension will start with a 20% bonus if you're a lower rate taxpayer and a whopping 40% bonus if you're a higher rate taxpayer. If you're a higher rate taxpayer a pension is much better value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3dc2476ab41b785e705976afa3e7f65",
"text": "The 1.09% is per year, not per month, so you will be getting about 1K per year just for sitting around on your backside. Some important things. It is almost certain that you can earn a better interest rate elsewhere, if you are prepared to leave your 100K untouched. For example, even in Natwest you can earn 3.2% over the next year if you buy a fixed rate bond. For 100K that is certainly worth looking at. Or maybe put 90K in a fixed rate bond and leave 10K in an instant access account. Taxes should not be a problem since you can earn around 7K before you start paying taxes. However be aware that in the UK most bank accounts deduct tax at source. That means they send the tax they think you should have paid to the government, and you then have to claim it back from them. Accounts for young people may work differently. Ask your bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ee72e0f45538a89c714aff65edec8b",
"text": "James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc2f3c33075335b08c50365125d6639",
"text": "Congrats on saving aggressively when you're young. I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged accounts because the rules can change on them, and there's already a penalty for you to take out that money for most purposes until you've almost tripled your age. Free money (a match) overcomes this reservation for me, but I'm not contributing anything beyond that. I'm paying my taxes on the rest and am done with them. Watching your money grow tax-free for another 37 1/2 years only to see your (and everyone else's) marginal tax rate rise isn't much fun. I'm not saying that will happen, but it certainly could.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3d69f4722cc4215f1e83375d2f9ed40",
"text": "10-15% of the bat you want to keep liquid in a savings account with interest at 1.5% that best at the moment. In case of a real emergency. Look in to dividend stocks they can bring in 10-15% on your investment and fairly liquid as well. There's also rental properties but 40k isn't much room to move around with in that area.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2d0acd73942fdaf40b3cd3e4c76c664",
"text": "The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax) However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "983096f3afa1f54c5e96cfe44c01b014",
"text": "So a interesting note is that this doesn't seem to take into account cost of living arbitrage OR investments. The reason it's so good to make that money isn't so you can spend it on sports cars and cheap (read: expensive) women. If you invest you can put away like 50k/year, which will probably net you at least 5% return per year (more if you're risky) . So you make 100k for like 5 years, put away 250k and get like 20k from doing nothing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
961cdbbba8294e98ff66747694beae9b
|
Buying shares in a company after you quit
|
[
{
"docid": "326ea6960923a13468c22e20815d10cd",
"text": "\"US law dictates that you cannot buy / sell shares in a company you work for except during open trading windows. I understand lockout periods when you're in a company but what about after you quit? There's no such law. Trading lockouts are imposed by companies themselves to avoid the complexities of identifying \"\"insiders\"\". For large companies it sometimes is easier/cheaper to assume everyone is insider instead of imposing internal data flow controls and limitations. For such companies, their internal policies would also manage how the employees who are leaving should be treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4998d18adde1e3f2c49018a4cca20b07",
"text": "Insider trading is when you buy or sell an investment based on material, non-public information that gives you an unfair advantage over the rest of traders in that market. Working for a company is one way that you might have such information, but whether it is insider trading is not contingent on you working there. You could use that information a long time after leaving the company. You don't even need to have worked there. If a friend/relative gave you non-public information because THEY work there, it is still insider trading.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "493b6151ec08412a1ee9ee0308c04f87",
"text": "Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb01897442967732700188d70b1e2d55",
"text": "This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a7cb335aa2cfc013f8504d25232875e",
"text": "\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f45011a6336fee7be61768d0ccc71e1",
"text": "Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742316b384830a9f67b1074484b927cb",
"text": "The answer to your question as asked is no. Call options, even those issued by the company, cannot create new shares unless they are employee stock options. Company-issued warrants, on the other hand, can create new shares.",
"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": "029c697b5e5d6d88f12f3c5493bfb946",
"text": "The holders of the shares have to agree to sell them to management in a share repurchase. Typically, share repurchases are done in the open market, causing market activity to increase the share price marginally. This is how the company returns the value to shareholders. The company could also negotiate a price with a mutual fund, or founder, for a large block. If they get close to the point of purchasing all outstanding shares, this would be exactly the same as the management of the company taking the company private, buying out all existing shareholders. To prevent a single holdout from keeping say the very last share for one million dollars or the like on the open market, they would generally propose to the board of directors the buyout terms with a price per share, and most corporate charters are written such that the directors' vote binds minority shareholders to buyout or merger decisions. Michael Dell famously took Dell Computer private in 2013, raising external money to offer a fair price to the board, which accepted it, letting him take it back to private status.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca405224c5eb80b97e9c9a2ecccc177",
"text": "\"Yes, this is possible with some companies. When you buy shares of stock through a stock broker, the shares are kept in \"\"street name.\"\" That means that the shares are registered to the broker, not to you. That makes it easy to sell the stock later. The stock broker keeps track of who actually owns which shares. The system works well, and there are legal protections in place to protect the investors' assets. You can request that your broker change the stock to your name and request a certificate from the company. However, companies are no longer required to do this, and some won't. Your broker will charge you a fee for this service. Alternatively, if you really only want one share for decoration, there are companies that specialize in selling shares of stock with certificates. Two of them are giveashare.com and uniquestockgift.com, which offer one real share of stock with a stock certificate in certain popular companies. (Note: I have no experience with either one.) Some companies no longer issue new stock certificates; for those, these services sell you a replica stock certificate along with a real share of electronic stock. (This is now the case for Disney and Apple.) With your stock certificate, you are an actual official stockholder, entitled to dividends and a vote at the shareholder meeting. If this is strictly an investment for you, consider the advantages of street name shares: As to your question on buying stock directly from a company and bypassing a broker altogether, see Can I buy stocks directly from a public company?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37b638fddbe7ead32efb9a79b6f85e1",
"text": "What are my options, if any, in how to deal with a buyout that forced me to sell, and accept cash only for my Florida USA company shares? Options are limited;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e59c7a6a0d5e4e27e86385155987a7ce",
"text": "I will never understand the logic behind this. If you buyback shares instead of funding pension liabilities... those liabilities are still there and any serious investor will factor that into the companies stock price. I guess it's just easier to be a consistent dividend grower and cater to that audience if your outstanding shares decrease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab0454cb97484b5aee38694219afe541",
"text": "\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33",
"text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8b98710d6bef4992238318812359b05b",
"text": "Once you own no shares for 31 days, it's game over. Even though the accounting has wash sales to consider, in the end, gains and losses all cancel to one net position of break even, gain or loss. It's when there are shares remaining at the end of a period of time that the wash sale rules really impact the numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbb3d32ea4121d054ca4956be87ef97",
"text": "You might be right about that, but your previous posts don't say that. In just the last one you said: >Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it **also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well** This is indicating that you believe there is a difference somehow, no?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
91dae2291ff188c568eb3c8372aed99b
|
Determine share price from S-1 for company that was bought before going public
|
[
{
"docid": "4f214c7896e53e4033f83168ea3ed4c4",
"text": "The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "511fd9fcdff5d9b942b80d3da0ec8b73",
"text": "\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63",
"text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e185bd487ce466eea430fe6c6c67a618",
"text": "If a deal is struck, you're part of that deal because you own shares. If someone offers $10/share for the entire company, you'll get that. If the stock price is $1.50 and someone offers $2/share, you'll get that.",
"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": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5",
"text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "718c94c2f02d2b07d82175dba8776ff6",
"text": "\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481fa5da9a350df3203b595c3e6525f1",
"text": "If you buy for $1 and sell $1 when the price goes to $2, you would have sold only half of your initial investment. So your investment would now be worth $2 and you sell $1 leaving $1 still in the market. This means you would have sold half your initial investment, making a profit of $0.50 on this half of your initial investment, and having to pay CGT on this amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd44af0ba38fa7d68265e7bc6603f04d",
"text": "According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4de28ba19820b615cbea36347ae3584a",
"text": "For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant. So: rs = rf + beta x (market premium) rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10 price now = $40.00 price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24 EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94",
"text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812",
"text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb7c13002e733a544e44b933d8248ef",
"text": "Dividends would be a possible factor you are ignoring. If Dell has another quarter or two to pay out dividends that could account for some of the difference there. I don't think there is a confirmed date of when the deal is done yet other than around the end of Dell's second quarter which was in the LA Times link you cited. There is also the potential for the terms of the deal to be revised that is another possibility here. Have you examined other deals where a public company went private to see how the stock performed in the last few months before the deal closed?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfb787181731c3db190ce83e73934f7",
"text": "You can't. If there was a reliable way to identify an undervalued stock, then people would immediately buy it, its price would rise and it wouldn't be undervalued any more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "818e4c0014c78e9b1e1f2d31529ae8ab",
"text": "You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fbbddf99ada47cb3317b4673d6b8ca",
"text": "This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "247dfb2dc3b33e6a52abd129f07abd93",
"text": "The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c04a669fc1e079a5960737ab495aba25
|
How are RSU's factored into Income during loan qualification?
|
[
{
"docid": "ce2b9eb61772188ef8886e5a8af07a1c",
"text": "\"RSUs are not \"\"essentially cash\"\". \"\"R\"\" in the RSU stands for restricted. These awards have strings attached, and as long as the strings are attached - you don't really own the money. As such, most banks do not include RSUs in the income considerations. Some do, especially if they have a specific agreement with your employer (check your HR/benefits coordinator). Specifically for mortgage loan, where the underwriting is very strict, I'm not aware of banks that include RSUs as income without a specific agreement with the employer as a perk. For credit cards/car loans, where you just need to write a number, they would probably care less. Some banks (but not all) consider past performance, and would include bonuses (and maybe RSUs) if you can show several consecutive years of comparable bonuses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990ada206b3efd2ac13b0f6e35791830",
"text": "Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "58a1ef9474acf62ced2a5cac70384910",
"text": "Make sure you can really do what you plan on doing: Look at the maximum loan length and the maximum loan amount. From the IRS- retirement plans faqs regarding loans A qualified plan may, but is not required to provide for loans. If a plan provides for loans, the plan may limit the amount that can be taken as a loan. The maximum amount that the plan can permit as a loan is (1) the greater of $10,000 or 50% of your vested account balance, or (2) $50,000, whichever is less ... A plan that provides for loans must specify the procedures for applying for a loan and the repayment terms for the loan. Repayment of the loan must occur within 5 years, and payments must be made in substantially equal payments that include principal and interest and that are paid at least quarterly. Loan repayments are not plan contributions. The referenced documents also discuss the option regarding multiple loans, and the maximum amount of all active and recent loans Having a 401K loan will still count against the maximum amount of monthly payments you can afford. Also check the interest rate, and yes they required to charge interest. Some companies will not allow you to make contributions to a 401K while you have an outstanding loan. If that is true with your company then you will miss out on the matching funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1d3611099cbee3136ec36c06127dd7",
"text": "Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a483c837a44ef2446f50dc0408ebc42",
"text": "They use an amortization table like can be found Here. The Forumula is not that complex where: A = payment Amount per period P = initial Principal (loan amount) r = interest rate per period n = total number of payments or periods You will need to add 50 to the A to account for the payment fee amount though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cf5c99fe0c5d5951803ae8a0299a763",
"text": "The days are long gone when offered mortgages were simply based on salary multiples. These days it's all about affordability, taking into account all incomes and all outgoings. Different lenders will have different rules about what they do and don't accept as incomes; these rules may even vary per-product within the same lender's product list. So for example a mortgage specifically offered as buy-to-let might accept rental income (with a suitable void-period multiplier) into consideration, but an owner-occupier mortgage product might not. Similarly, business rules will vary about acceptance of regular overtime, bonuses, and so on. Guessing at specific answers: #1 maybe, if it's a buy-to-let product, Note that these generally carry a higher interest rate than owner-occupier mortgages; expect about 2% more #2 in my opinion it's extremely unlikely that any lender would consider rental income from your cohabiting spouse #3 probably yes, if it's a buy-to-let product",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26ab88c2da901106d4f0286c66eec052",
"text": "it's just a passthrough security essentially. sofi packages a bunch of loans, refinances them for the student, and you invest in sofi corporate debt as they pass through the returns on the loan to you in the form of bond cpns. i mean its not exactly the same, but its pretty close",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b43743e858132b99004d6b4fb30a5151",
"text": "\"I speak from a position of experience, My BS and MS are both in Comp Sci. I know very little about loans or finances. That is very unfortunate as you are obviously an intelligent human being. Perhaps this is a good time to pause your formal education and get educated in personal finance. To me, it is that important. I study computer science, and am thus confident that I will be able to find work after I finish school. This kind of attitude can lead to trouble. You will likely have a high salary, but that does not always translate into prosperity. Personal finance is more about behavior then mathematics. I currently work with people that have high salaries in a low cost of living area. Some have lost homes due to foreclosure some are very limited in their options because of high student loan balances. Some are millionaires without hitting the IPO/startup lotto. The difference is behavior. It's possible that someone in my family will be able to cosign and help me out with this loan. This is indicative of lack of knowledge and poor financial behavior. This kind of thing can lead to strained relationships to the point where people don't talk to each other. Never co-sign for anyone, and if you value the relationship with a person never ask them to co-sign. I'll be working as a TA again for a $1000 stipend. Yikes! Why in the world would you work for 1K when you need 4K? You should find a way to earn 6K this semester so you can save some and put some toward the loans you already acquired. Accepting this kind of situation \"\"raises red flags\"\" on your attitude towards personal finance. And yes it is possible, you can earn that waiting tables and if you can find a part time programming gig you can make a lot more then that. Consider working as a TA and wait tables until you find that first programming gig. I am just about done with my undergraduate degree, and will be starting graduate school at the same university next semester. To me this is a recipe for failure in most cases. You have expended all your financing options to date and are planning to go backwards even more. Why not get out of school with your BS, and go to work? You can save up some of your MS tuition and most companies will provide tuition reimbursement. Computer Science/Software Engineering can be a fickle market. Right now things are going crazy and times are really good. However that was not always the case during my career and unlikely for yours. For example, Just this year I bypassed my highest rate of pay that occurred in 2003. I was out of work most of 2004, and for part of 2005 I actually made less then when I was working while in college. In 2009 my company cut our salaries by 5%, but the net cost to me was more like a 27% cut. In 2001 I worked as a contractor for a company that had a 10% reduction in full time employees, yet they kept us contractors working. Recently I talked with a recruiter about a position doing J2EE, which is what I am doing now. It required a high level security clearance which is not an easy thing to get. The rub was that it was located in a higher cost of living area and only paid about 70% of what I am making now. They required more and paid less, but such is the market. You need to learn about these things! Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c58315e4f2d1114fe198979ab5842f02",
"text": "In the United States, when applying for credit cards, proof of income is on an honor system. You can make $15k a year and write on your application that you make $150k a year. They don't check that value other than to have their computer systems figure out risk and you get a yes or no. It was traditionally easy to attain credit, but that got tightened in 2008/2009 with the housing crisis. This is starting to change again and credit is flowing much more easily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a650c6cb599a5da5b1517644cefd71c",
"text": "It's not a question with a single right answer. Other answers have addressed some aspects, my case may provide some guidance as to one way of looking at some of the issues. When I had student loans, the interest rate was RPI¹ and I could get more than that as the return on a savings account. At the time I could get a whole year's worth of loan at the start of the year, save it, and draw from the savings, partly because I had a little working capital saved already. Importantly in my case, the loans were use-it-or-lose-it: if I didn't take the loan out by about halfway through each academic year, it was no longer available to me. The difference in interest rates was probably similar to what you can get with a careful choice of savings account and 0% on the loan (I did this in the 90s when interest rates were higher). Over a four year degree the interest I earned this way added up to no more than about £100, which went someway towards offsetting the fact I would be paying interest after graduation. If you can clear the loan before you pay any interest it would give you a return, but a small one that could easily be eroded by rate changes or errors on your part (like not keeping on top of the paperwork). It still may be beneficial to take out the loans depending on your capital needs -- in my case it made buying a house after graduating much easier, as we still had money for the deposit (downpayment) and student loan rates were much lower than mortgage rates (100% mortgages were also available then, but expensive). ¹ RPI stands for retail price index, a measure of inflation.",
"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": "1a5352b97ed3708b09f8a8e4769ed2b0",
"text": "\"Eh. A FICO change is more important than you think. Underwriting waterfalls almost always include **minimum** FICO scores. This only really becomes important when you get into securitization and the standards (both GSE and Private-Label) required for MBS issuance. Because -- of course -- an underwriter can originate a loan and then hold it it on the books (this is very prevalent in non-conforming Jumbo loans). That said, if you want to sell the whole loans to a GSE or private label, they have to meet underwriting requirements (Reps & Warranties). To your original answer: you're right that it probably won't make a difference but not because FICO doesn't matter. Moreso because there are only 9 million potential \"\"borrowers\"\" affected and that 9 million most likely doesn't constitute any real demand for mortgages. This also ignores the possibility that FICO requirements in underwriting standards adjust to FICO 9; but I really doubt that they will.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2120e469025fbd901c6c37965d30050c",
"text": "Do you know how SoFi's business model works? They're usually pretty conservative with their loans and refinancing. But I guess if they were looking to expand into riskier loans then it sounds like they've got some red tape that'd hold them back. Thank you for the explanation, much appreciated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c3122d7636f15842b326dc32f0f5598",
"text": "The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d427c82c7caca0c57b1ffc41a0b9a437",
"text": "\"From the HLSS 1st quarter 10Q: \"\"Match funded advances on loans serviced for others result from our transfers of residential loan servicing advances to SPEs in exchange for cash. The SPEs issue debt supported by collections on the transferred advances. We made these transfers under the terms of our advance facility agreements. These transfers do not qualify for sale accounting because we retain control over the transferred assets. As a result, we account for these transfers as financings and classify the transferred advances on our Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as Match funded advances and the related liabilities as Match funded liabilities. We use collections on the Match funded advances pledged to the SPEs to repay principal and to pay interest and the expenses of the entity. Holders of the debt issued by this entity can look only to the assets of the entity itself for satisfaction of the debt and have no recourse against HLSS.\"\" I'm not an expert in the accounting of these things but I'll take a stab from the view of a bond investor. Let's assume the mortgage(s) in question have been pooled together and sold into the bond market in the form of a mortgage-backed security (MBS). When a homeowner falls behind on their payment, scheduled principal and interest (their monthly mortgage payment amount, or \"\"P&I\"\") is advanced as if the borrower is still current to the person who holds the MBS. This is typically done from the time they first fall behind until either they 1) catch up on their payments or, 2) are foreclosed upon and the home is sold to repay the mortgage balance. In either instance the advanced monthly payments are recaptured by the servicer before the holder of the MBS is paid. In this sense, the servicer develops a sort of prepaid asset over time by advancing money they are almost certain to recover at a future date (usually via foreclosure and liquidation). Due to a high number of borrowers falling behind on their payments since the housing crisis and the resulting time it takes to foreclose on a property, the servicers (OCN, HLSS, etc.) have built a large balance of advances on the asset side of their balance sheet. To free up this cash prior to liquidation of the home, they have sold short term bonds against this asset (via an SPE), thereby creating the liability you reference. So in essence they have, say, a home they expect to be liquidated in twelve months that they have advanced P&I on. The short term bonds sold via the SPE offset this asset at an equivalent term, thereby making the asset and liability \"\"match funded\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "175a9f550ec56623c289df7f2fe0dc18",
"text": "Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f92d195707bc8910972f6def5a6b7f6d",
"text": "It's important because you may be able to reduce the total amount of interest paid (by paying the loan faster); but you can do nothing to reduce the total of your principal repayments. The distinction can also affect the amount of tax you have to pay. Some kinds of interest payments can be counted as business expenses, which means that they reduce the amount of income you have to pay tax on. But this is not generally the case for money used to repay the loan principal.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cebdc338ea7ae044ef847a05937664d6
|
How do I find out the Earnings Per Share of a Coca Cola Co Share?
|
[
{
"docid": "caf4adfd21859c172926d3c5efe935fd",
"text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6ed8fecb07ede6439c758eb40d85dfe",
"text": "Market cap should be share price times number of shares, right? That's several orders of magnitude right there...",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cfea65956e6385a78c8890560327b685",
"text": "/ in relative to the Tesla's performance, and current inflation. They can split and reverse split at anytime the board decides without any regard to inflation or performance. OP points to Tesla at 350- he doesn't point to PE. It makes no differences what the price of one share is. If they split 10 for 1 it would be 35- but what difference does that make- the PE remains the same. OP does not understand value- only price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "61365a9bee6d9911a16ce51eecbbaf4c",
"text": "You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry. Average P/E ratio of industry = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in Industry / Number of companies in industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebf518848523d7cdbf96cea331263318",
"text": "\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f245448cef4bd0cb4b082095362b7a41",
"text": "Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "985975023a13cbcb386766fa4e23c83d",
"text": "See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf8fbb6297344fa58d97ad8831b11ca",
"text": "Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation. The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e4f72d09bc4718e190a0dd240b4fd",
"text": "In theory, GS has a Chinese Wall between the department which issued the advice and any departments which may profit from such advice. This would take away some of your distrust, except for the fact that GS did violate these rules in the past (see the answer from user10665). You're wondering about the timing, prior to the release of figures by Tesla itself. This is quite normal. Predicting the past is not that useful ;) The price range indeed is wide, but that too is a meaningful opinion. It says that GS thinks Tesla's share price strongly depends on factors which are hard to predict. In comparison, Coca Cola's targets will be in a much smaller range because its costs and sales are very stable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a1af1f518ca2fda333f2639837459d9",
"text": "PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0a4756367c596b3fda74b485d5ea1a0",
"text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2b46f3a5cbcb74f41b3770d96231ea4",
"text": "You could look up their old SEC filings before they were placed in conservatorship. Derive WACC from that. Comp to peer financials from the same timeframe; see how they compare. Assume some sort of size premium if you so desire. That might give you a picture of the business's cost of capital were it an independent entity. Since it's a GSE, you could make the case that its cost of capital is the rate on US treasury securities. In reality, it's current cost of capital is probably a mix of the two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b",
"text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f04930946267e91a874ad1fc6649f80c
|
What does a contract's worth mean?
|
[
{
"docid": "1d4e862ef7728b54f1e9bb19530c9621",
"text": "The amount stated is the total amount of money the customer will be paying to the company. How much profit that will translate into is dependent on the type of contract. Some types of contracts: Cost plus fixed fee: they are paid what it costs to complete the contract plus a fee on top of that. That fee represents their profits. The costs will include salary, benefits, overhead, equipment, supplies. Firm fixed price: They perform the service, and they get paid a fixed amount. If their costs are higher than they forecast, then they may lose money. If they can be more efficient than they forecast, then they make more money. Time and materials: They are paid for completing each sub-task based on the number of hours it takes to complete each sub task, plus materials. This is used to hire a company to maintain a fleet of trucks. If the trucks are used a lot they will need more standard maintenance, plus additional repairs based on the type of use. They pay X for labor and Y for materials for an oil change, but A for labor and B for materials for a complete engine rebuild. There are many variations on these themes. Some put the risk on the customer, some on the company. How and when the company is paid is based on the terms of the contract. Some pay X% a month, others pay based on meeting milestones. Some pay based on the number of tasks completed in each time period. Some contracts run for a specific period of time, others have an initial period plus option years. The article may or may not specify if the quoted amount is the minimum amount of the contract or the maximum amount. The impact on the stock price is much more complex. Much more needs to be known about the structure of the contract, and who will be providing the service to determine if there will be profits. Some companies will bid to lose money, if it will serve as a bridge to another contract or to fill a gap that will allow them to delay layoffs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05228687ad0b3dbfaf6626b8b33b0b1",
"text": "\"$400M is the gross \"\"check\"\" the company will receive as payment for the project. The contract will specify payment schedule. And it can range from a payment per milestone achieved to a pay in full on completion. The profit will hopefully be positive, but it's not impossible for a bid to underestimate the full cost, resulting in no profit at all. In theory, if you knew the expected profit from the deal, you should be able to estimate the value it adds to the company's value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b89079c7fbc1cf5425bddf6210cabc",
"text": "It means $400m expected revenue, likely spread out over multiple years as it gets implemented, and not entirely guaranteed to happen as they still need to fulfill the contract. The impact on the stock price is complex - it should be positive, but nowhere close to a $400m increase in market cap. If the company is expected to routinely win such contracts, it may have no significant effect on the stock price, as it's already priced in - say, if analysts expect the company to win 1.2b contracts in this fiscal year, and now they've done 1/3 of that, as expected.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79bd1f7fa03d24bd2c00af21a84a8ba9",
"text": "isn't the answer in the question? it says the company starts officially NEXT year, yet it is asking for the net present value...i.e what that project is worth today. it could be that funds for that particular project may not be necessary for another year, but there may be other projects to evaluate against today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98ddd1dc09381088b4b6ac1ea095b6dc",
"text": "When people are crowing about their achievements, they often take liberties with those achievements. Vitalik's interpretation -- net worth, is probably what you would naturally come to mind. But when someone is bragging, that could mean anything -- $1M of total revenue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "691507a8b59982fbc66bf4fc3f3fa831",
"text": "\"It is called \"\"Opportunity Cost.\"\" Opportunity cost is the value you lose because of a decision you made. This is the book definition from Investopedia. The difference in return between a chosen investment and one that is necessarily passed up. Say you invest in a stock and it returns a paltry 2% over the year. In placing your money in the stock, you gave up the opportunity of another investment - say, a risk-free government bond yielding 6%. In this situation, your opportunity costs are 4% (6% - 2%).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d887055c4633a9d621e067397ea7054f",
"text": "All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aef5bf998c6e0d8e920b4fecd6beea3d",
"text": "Sure, its worth something. For example, not being able to speak freely would appear to devalue the wedding package this hotel offers. Another way being able to speak freely is worth something is when you get sued for libel. You can speak your mind, then pay the price to the lawyers and the court if what you said construed libel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aead3049de7a22bb0e128792c7e1b97",
"text": "\"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or \"\"capital\"\" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc. Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d812183064b4ab8b2a5a2aa6110e9587",
"text": "Hang on.. Lawyer here.. Regarding the promised twelve loddars: why would the promise to pay the loddars be destroyed by the fire - unless the promise is eg conditional on the existence of apples at the relevant time (a more risky promise)? If it IS contingent on something in that way then surely it can't be said to be equivalent to loddars (money)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aec4e6399f295898ce18ba28850340d",
"text": "\"There's no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales. If you sell it for $107K, then that's the current functional definition of its worth. There is not \"\"extra\"\" money to be had because you sold it for less than it was worth. If the buyer is able to flip it for more, then the value of the house effectively went up and he will pocket the difference when he sells it. EDIT This turned out to be unexpectedly controversial, so let me be more precise in my answer. I think this is important because it seems like many people misunderstand equity and how it figures (or doesn't) into the value of their home, which then leads to significant confusion and errors in what's many people's largest single investment. At any given time there are several possible ways to put a dollar value on your home. A non-exclusive list that includes: Some of these obviously are more \"\"official\"\" than others. It would not be strange for these different values to vary by quite a bit at any given time. (This is what I meant in my original answer when I said there's \"\"no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales.\"\") The interesting thing - and what I meant in my original answer when I wrote \"\"current functional definition of its worth\"\" - is that none of these factor directly into the transaction that the OP described of selling his house except for the last. Using the numbers from the OP's example, that means the $107K. Wherever the OP got the number $155K (either from one of the options on my list above or somewhere else), it won't be directly part of the sale between him and his friend. (For completeness, with a nod to Eric's comments on my original answer, some of these numbers may indirectly influence the sale. For example, the buyer typically won't be able to get a mortgage for a value greater than the appraised value of the house, and so that might influence what he's willing and able to bid. There may also be tax consequences if the price is artificially low, like, say, a gift. As further expounded below, however, that's not directly relevant to answering the OP's stated question.) Now, the OP seemed to believe that there is an \"\"extra\"\" $48K in cash up for grabs in this scenario. That comes from the $155K value that the OP claims his house has and the $107K price of the actual proposed sale. This is a complete misconception. When the buyer and seller sit down at closing and the title agent sums up who owes and who receives cash in this transaction, the $155K \"\"theoretical\"\" value will not enter into the calculation and therefore no one will pocket it. Subsequently, however, after the buyer takes possession, he may sell it. If it's true that he \"\"got a deal\"\" on the transaction at $107K, then he maybe able to flip it and turn a profit. But if that happens, it will be in a completely separate, subsequent transaction. Even if you look to this hypothetical second sale, however, the $155K doesn't really figure. The new owner will have to find his own buyer, and they will have to agree on a price. That might happen to be $155K, but there's no real reason to believe that it will or it won't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d0f3b06540c73259cd1844103b9366",
"text": "\"This is typically referred to as the \"\"market value\"\" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb7fc910fe1d242fcc4a395828b5462",
"text": "\"This isn't negotiations anymore. They are trying to change the deal after the fact. Stop negotiating and tell them they are bound to the agreement they signed. They are leaning on you because they know you are small and likely can't fight them. Document every conversation. Do not allow them to keep pushing after they've signed the agreement. They accepted your bid (after giving your pricing to a competitor, which is shitty and should have been your first red flag). Then they started working on you. At that point your answer should have been \"\"we have a verbal agreement of x services for y price. A different scope of work is not scalable and would require a new quote.\"\" At this point you can either accept that they will continue to beat you up, or you can jam the contract down their throats until they agree or walk away. I've been in a situation like this before. A major multinational asked for bid pricing that was agreed to be estimated only based on very loose requirements. Then they handed us a contract with that pricing included as \"\"not to exceed\"\". We ended up walking away. It sounds like you may want to do the same if you can. Big companies often will have legal and payables departments that basically exist to fight any obligation to pay out money. In our case shortly after we ran into someone in our industry who'd worked with that company, and they said to assume that company would reject 30% of all invoices we sent. If nothing else, to delay payment just a bit longer so they could keep earning interest on the money. Also, in the future I wouldn't turn away work until you are under a signed contract for a big project like this. You can't rely on such a contract to come through. If they drag feet and your schedule is full that's on them, or you bring in additional help or subcontract the work to deliver.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "487f70fefde2260535df8ddd74de4414",
"text": "NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a01acf95a353dcd5c011f4163d3d225",
"text": "To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "803cc957e0204d38e88920103c85f4e1",
"text": "It won't be worth $1050 at maturity. You are not accounting for tym. So to see the 'worth: of a bond you will need it's yield (5%) and the current market rate of a similar bond. Then just use the bond valuation formula to solve (on mobilw so can't explain further/better) sorry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b380b00b07239459c50359b0c5c4661",
"text": "Here's my answer for what it's worth:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "821e3eecf2857fc1405d1f4b33e8d359",
"text": "The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.